volving Planets? 1 -- Science Disproves Evolution

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Contrary to popular opinion, planets should not form from just the mutual gravitational attraction of particles orbiting a star, such as our Sun. Orbiting particles should spiral into its star or be scattered or expelled from their orbit�not merge (accrete) to become a planet (a). Experiments have shown that colliding particles, instead of sticking together, almost always fragment(b). (Similar difficulties exist in trying to form a moon from particles orbiting a planet.)

Despite these problems, let us assume that pebble-size to moon-size particles somehow evolved. �Growing a planet� by many small collisions will produce an almost non-spinning planet, because spins imparted by impacts will be largely self-canceling (c).

a. �Planet formation is a paradox: according to standard theory, dust grains orbiting newborn stars should spiral into those stars rather than accrete to form planets.� Philip Campbell, �Trap Holds Protoplanet Dust,� Nature, Vol.�498, 13 June 2013, p.�141.

Very special conditions are required to capture and then merge orbiting bodies. They are discussed more fully starting on page 292.

b . John F. Kerridge and James F. Vedder, �An Experimental Approach to Circumsolar Accretion,� Symposium on the Origin of the Solar System (Paris, France: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1972), pp.�282�283.

�It turns out to be surprisingly difficult for planetesimals to accrete mass during even the most gentle collisions.� Erik Asphaug, �The Small Planets,� Scientific American, Vol.�282, May 2000, p.�54.

��We came to the conclusion,� says Lissauer, �that if you accrete planets from a uniform disk of planetesimals, [the observed] prograde rotation just can�t be explained,� The simulated bombardment leaves a growing planet spinning once a week at most, not once a day.� �Richard A. Kerr, �Theoreticians Are Putting a New Spin on the Planets,� Science, Vol.�258, 23�October 1992, p.�548.

Luke Dones and Scott Tremaine, �Why Does the Earth Spin Forward?� Science, Vol.�259, 15�January 1993, pp.�350�354.

Some believe that the inner planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars) gained their spins through a few very large and improbable impacts. However, this appeal to large or improbable impacts will not work for the giant outer planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune), which have the most spin energy. Such impacts on these gaseous planets would be even more improbable, because they move more slowly and are so far from the center of the solar system. Besides, impacts from large rocks would not account for the composition of the giant planets�basically hydrogen and helium.