Talk:Nebular hypothesis

Template:Vital article

Exoplanets

Why is there no mention of exoplanets? Surely the 1,849 exoplanets that have been found have some sort of significance inside of a model which claims to explain their existence? Or is it that the 1,849 exoplanets found defy the nebular hypothesis so there can be no mention of them made here? Elephant in the room Wavyinfinity (talk) 21:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Exoplanets are simply not as well studied as our own system. It difficult to know the precise mass and diameter of most of these exo-planets, much less where and how big their various equivalents of the asteroid belt(s) and Kuiper belt(s) are (might be). We simply need to know more. We also need to better understand planetary migration as in the case of the nice model. -- Kheider (talk) 22:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The Nice model does not solve the main issues. How did the planets lose their angular momentum? How do 1cm sized particles clump together? How do rocks and minerals form absent the activation energy required for non-spontaneous chemical combination reactions? How do gas giants form from a quickly disappearing disk? It appears to me that the Nice model does not solve anything, but only adds more problems, because now we have to explain how stable orbits become unstable just so they be arranged in the way we see them. Wavyinfinity (talk) 12:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• After the planets scatter one another, the planets orbits can become circular by scattering asteroids and comets.
• The first 1cm sized clumps would have to stick together from low velocity impacts as there were no massive bodies to scatter them into eccentric orbits.
• We know the Suns birth nebula contained micron-sized diamonds. Partially differentiated nascent planets would contain rocks and minerals.
• The gas giants formed before the proto-sun matured.

-- Kheider (talk) 14:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

These are bad explanations as they completely ignore both chemistry and thermodynamics (see below). Why are chemistry and phase transitions ignored?

Wavyinfinity (talk) 15:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Chemistry and hydrated minerals on protoplanets such as 4 Vesta are a major area of planetary study. -- Kheider (talk) 16:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Chemistry

Why is there no mention of chemistry? Are not asteroids comprised of rocks/minerals? The gravitational potential energy of a large asteroid does not contain the activation energy to synthesize rocks (non-spontaneous chemical reactions) in outer space. Why is this also completely ignored? Or am I wrong to consider science as a multidisciplinary subject? Wavyinfinity (talk) 12:09, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

It literally feels as if this model was invented before chemistry became an actual science. I would suggest placing a tag on this article stating that it is severely out of date and does not reflect modern science. Wavyinfinity (talk) 15:47, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I suggest we keep handwaving and pseudoscience out of Wikipedia. -- Kheider (talk) 16:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

You haven't answered the question. Why in this entire article the arguably most important physical science ignored?Wavyinfinity (talk) 20:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Thermodynamics

Why is there no mention of thermodynamics? You know, simple phase transitions of matter, plasma (physics) becomes gas, gas becomes solid/liquid matter and vice versa? The writers of this article have completely avoided talk of thermodynamics, regardless if the objects being mentioned are literally made of plasma, gas, liquids and solids. That is like talking of storms but not mentioning rain or winds. Wavyinfinity (talk) 12:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Plasma

The forth state of matter is not mentioned in this entire article, even though all hot stars are comprised of it. You do not have to believe me, read the entire article! The words plasma or ionization or recombination are not mentioned anywhere. The most abundant observed state of matter in the entire universe is ignored. Why?Wavyinfinity (talk) 21:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Three Theories of Planet Formation Busted

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/02/110222-planets-formation-theory-busted-earth-science-space/

This is in response to the statement, "(explanation) including the nearly circular and coplanar orbits of the planets." Yet the article via National Geographic clearly points to, "newly discovered star systems defy existing models of how planets form", and "theory has struck out", and "theory has implications not born out in reality."

The nebular hypothesis is falsified theory because it does not represent reality. I cannot see that being any clearer. Why is it not mentioned that exoplanets falsify this theory (hypothesis)? This has been known for over 4 years now, as the article was written Feb. 20, 2011. Wavyinfinity (talk) 12:42, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Any more sources beyond that? Because while I agree it should be said in the article if confirmed, the article you gave makes pretty clear the theory is falsified according to one specific expert, and that other experts aren't nearly so sure the theory itself is wrong, rather than the models. ("Still, some experts aren't quite ready to give up on current theories,"; "To run enough simulations to get a meaningful distribution of possible results, he said, it's necessary to use stripped-down versions of these models. But the "quicker" models come at a price, and their failure to match exoplanet reality doesn't necessarily mean theory is wrong.").

So, can we say on basis of this single article that the theory is busted? Not really. We can probably safely say that the models in use do not work—both of the experts they cited certainly agree on that much, as would anyone who compares said models with the data we currently have—but to proclaim in Wikipedia's voice that it "is a falsified theory" rather than that "According to Geoffrey Marcy, the theory is falsified" goes a bit far when based on just this one article—an article that gives another explanation, also cited to an expert, for the differences between the models and the actual data to boot. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 14:55, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Here is another article stating quite clearly that, "extra-solar giant planets has however revealed an unexpected large diversity among these systems which cannot be explained within the framework of this working paradigm."http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001AGM....18S0407B This is obviously in reference to Hot Jupiters. As well, when one digs deeper it has become clear that even more objects which outright falsify the nebular hypothesis have been found, "astronomers were surprised to find that six out of a larger sample of 27 were found to be orbiting in the opposite direction to the rotation of their host star the exact reverse of what is seen in our own Solar System. The new discoveries provide an unexpected and serious challenge to current theories of planet formation." http://www.astro.gla.ac.uk/nam2010/pr10.php Should we assume that "serious challenge to current theories" as something that will go away? Or does it mean that the current theories are false? As well, no mention is made of these retrograde objects in the nebular hypothesis page. Again, these realizations happened four years ago, yet not a peep on this page about the controversy? Why? It is becoming obvious this page is outdated and should probably not be trusted as a credible source for accurate, up to date information.Wavyinfinity (talk) 19:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)