Snorkelbottoms Scientific Theory

Mars lack of magnetic field is not evidence of the planet being internally cool but is evidence of the planets dangerous atmosphere, it being absent of ozone and thus the surface is not protected like the surface of Earth. In fact, the evidence of dormant volcanos such as [b]Olympus Mons[/b] and tectonic plates such as [b]Valles Marineris[/b] suggests that the planet had, and therefore may still have a hot, molten internals. The scientists that have claimed internal cooling have yet to prove their theory. Exposing the core of a planet, the source of the planets gravity would increase the gravitational effect because of the lack of dense (solid and liquid matter) shielding and covering it. Heavy Mass doesn't always equal Heavy Gravity, remember that mass is the atomic weight (determined by the total number of atomic particles within its atoms (protons, neutrons, electrons etc)) of an object, whereas Gravity is, as of yet still a mystery, for no-one, not Newton, Einstein, Hawking nor Susskind know exactly "what" gravity is. How is that foul of geology, physics or logic?

irt. [b]Snorkelbottom[/b]: The lack of magnetic field is indicative, under currently existed models tested to the available geological evidence, that the processes present on Earth responsible for generating a magnetic field have died out, on Mars. Such processes are not dependent on the atmosphere composition. It is certainly true that Mars had volcanic and tectonic activity. That however is sustained by internal heat. If it is absent, it also means internal heat isn't all that much. Because if there was internal heat, it would always look for a means of escape and keep the surface fractured. As for gravity- gravity cannot be shielded against, certainly not by just interposing dense matter. And while the nature of the beast (the "why") is (mostly) unknown, its behavior has been known since Newton. And, based on that behavior, one can look at planets, stars and so on, and estimate their mass, based on gravitational interaction. In particular, the famous gravitational force equals a constant times product of masses divided by distance squared allows one to estimate either the orbital period of something, or going the other way and finding the mass from the orbital period. These things were done ages ago. Better estimations became available as better measurements and better models became available. They all say Jupiter's massive. They can all be wrong, but it should be clear why the likelier assumption is that they are more right than something wildly different from them.

The Accretion theory, or more correctly the Nebular Hypothesis was only accepted when astronomers observed discs of dense dust around allegedly new stars within Supernova's. The Nebular Hypothesis does not only not account for the existence of the outer planets, namely the Gas Giants Jupiter and Saturn, and the Ice Giants Uranus and Neptune. It also misses the bigger picture - which is the , as of yet unshown second part of this theory. Furthermore looking at each planet in order starting from the Sun outwards a clear pattern can be seen... With the outer planets each is denser than the one before it, and with the inner planets we have a small, hot ball of rock with a small atmosphere, an (essentially) primordial planet, Earth, and a dead desert planet.

So what your saying is .... The black goo is PHASE 5!!

I tend to default to the logics that Accretion Theory proposes, but for your hypothesis to work there are some big hurdles that each stage are going to have to overcome, fundamentally and essentially: each of there own planetary masses which are in direct relation to the next one proceeding it. You said something of the Sun vomiting forth each planetoid in succession to the one that proceeded it but if Mercury was 'spat out' first then Venus second, Earth third, Mars forth and so on how does Venus firstly with its larger mass get past the orbit of Mercury without undermining both it and that of its own without crashing into it to thus end up settling in the position we find it today? Then, how do you get Earth past TWO moving planetary bodies to thus settle within its orbit then another being Mars, then what, the Asteroid belt was spat out to be found where it is and then how do you account for the positioning of Jupiter a GIGANTIC planetary body that now has to be spat out past four smaller planets without peturbing one of them to thus finds its own stationary orbit and not just that one but the next Saturn, Uranus, Neptune Pluto its smaller companion Charon and the Dwarf planets beyond not to mention the comet halo that more than likely surrounds the entire Solar System. Better for you to think of your theory in reverse order. Pluto would come out first, then Neptune then Uranus, Saturn, Jupiter would follow along with Mars, Earth, Venus then finally to finish off with Mercury being last on the list to be 'Spat Out' as a glob but first in line within your theoretical make-up of the Solar System proper. Its a theory that needs a lot more work as there are many variables you cant account for by just the Sun merely throwing off planets ad-hoc with no explenation as to why succeeeding planets would get bigger than smaller then GIGANTIC with regards to Jupiter and Saturn and the next gas giants along. And what about all of their moons. How does your discounting of Accretion Theory alternately explin how they suddenly found themselves to be in the orbits they are? If you discount the accretion theory, you therefore discount accretion around accretion as is the case with smaller moon bodies the by-product of planetary accretion and sufficiant planetary mass to begin pulling in and concentrating into smaller spheroid moonlets of which there are literally several hundred scattered accorss our Solar System. A lot more work has got to be applied to this theory to account for the many variables that you have failed to raise and offer a satisfactory 'The Alternative Views' explanation for. [b]"The sun, and all the planets are spinning on their own axis, in the same direction (with the exception of Uranus and Venus), which is the same direction of which they orbit the sun, and all the planets are moving AWAY from the sun - the logic of those two FACTs states clearly that... 1 - The planets were born from the sun 2 - Therefore the Accretion Theory is wrong"[/b] The reason for heavier rocky planets is because the heavy elements filter out as oppssed to the lighter ones being that of gas and dust. The Gas Giants occur because they are at a strategically cancelling-out point (sort of Lagrange Points)where-by the lighter gas elements simply find their ow equilibrium in relation/ direct relation to the Solar Wind that blows OUT into the Solar System as the Sun radiates out its energy to the universe. Gases are allowed to form and expand upon a basic rock core perhaps no bigger than Venus or the Earth. The gases simply grew and grew as comets, meteors, asteroids other smaller planets kept getting 'consumed' by Jupiter and the other gas giants. The accretion of the solar system is what it is: a nebulus of gas and dust. From a near-by supernova the gravitational waves and eddys blasted out by the ensuing explosion created a tsunami effect rippled through-out the floating gas cloud. Gravity began to rotate the gas cloud in the direction that the Sun still turns in to this day, that was set in stone during those first days due to the Supernovas expanding pressure wave that slammed into the nebulus gas in the first place. The rotating gas cloud forces the superheated cetral mass to suddenly go NOVA and thus you have a star that gets born that is our baby Sun. The accretion disc is still all around the baby star in a nebulus halo which in turn gets spun and spun so tightly into micro nots that star to become the heavy elements in the planets that we know and the lighter elements in the remaining planets that we know. Later on little problems and unforseen occurrances start to happen such as multiple planetoids, hundreds roving around the proto-solar system, each one jockeying for prime positioning within the formation which we will later come to know. In the mean time massive impacts occur with the likes of Venus possibly, Mercury, Uranus, Mars and a few more. Unranus was rolled over onto its side, possibly Neptune and Uranus at one time actualy swapped places! Mercury got supposedly smashed so hard the resulting impact stripped its outer lighter layers off to leave a denser inner core to continue rotating round the Sun. Its possible that a massive rocky body smashed into Mars creating the Hellas Basin and globally forced Mars to go into a super-mega eruption that effectively turned the entire planets internals over in one eruption, tearing the Vallis Marineris open, punching through the mantle to the core and out the other side to force up the creation of the Tharsis Bulge which, in-turn, created Olympus Mons and the other three Mons volcanos. A massive Mars-sized planetary body (Thea) side-swiped the Earth thus tipping it over slightly upon its axis to re-accrete and form itself into a moon satellite with the Moon thus acting as a counter-balance as it orbits around it (the Earth) ever-after. This had an accelatory effect upon the planet as evolution went into an accelorated overdrive giving rise to the tides, the seasons, the gravity bulge that effects the oceans world-wide. One thing has an effect upon the preceeding thing wihich creates an occurring thing further down the planetary evolution process and thus the evolutionary processes possibly acting upon them. Until we have the world and the space around it and the universe that we know today - by observable science coupled with educated theory but it is theory that is reached by educated reasoning.

Hypernova, thank you for your in depth explanation of the accretion theory for those unfamiliar with it, I however am very familiar with it and the theory upon which it based - the Nebula hypothesis. Please note however that the explanations in this thread are in english not (what I call) sciencese (kinda like legalese more more condenscending). However I think maybe you misunderstand the meaning I tried to convey in the phrases, or maybe I didn't explain it clear enough. Although I state that mercury is a Stage 1 planet, I do not infer that it is the first planet that has been ejected from the planet, in reality I state that it is in fact the last to be ejected from the sun. What I was trying to explain in terms of the planets is thus... 1. A star ejects enough material which in turn forms a small celestial body with a very thin atmosphere due to the gases escaping through its crust(Mercury). 2. Said planet continues this process as it repeatedly orbits the sun while slowly migrating away. Over time the build of gases becomes so thick as to create, in essence a primordial yet toxic planet (Venus). 3. The balance of the gases settle with a rich oxygen, nitrogen and hydrogen atmosphere, liquid water forms and the conditions for life are set (Earth). 4. In time the labor of supporting life on said world takes its toll (deforestation, build up greenhouse gases, pollution etc.) and the planet becomes a dried up desert with no ozone layer (Mars). 5. (This part is guesswork at best, and is currently being looked into) Due to planets in ability to vent its inner heat due to the nature of its surface sediment (sand) the build of heat and gases causes an explosion and all solid and liquid matter is thrown out into space - destined to become asteroids, comets, meteors, ring matter or possibly even moons. The gas of the planet having less mass is unable to reach and though expands beyond its original reach is still retained by the planets own gravity. 6. A gas giant (Jupiter, Saturn), in which the layer(s) of gas are slowly drawn towards the planets core before being condensed to form liquids, which themselves freeze creating ice giants (Uranus, Neptune) while continuing to be condensed. 7. This condensing continues until all the planets matter is condensed to form a solid surface, by which point the planet has drifted into the Kuiper belt (pluto and other KBO's). Again, Hypernova, sorry if that was not clear

Thats alright, in a way when anybody such as you or myself goes into offering a hypothesis and does not cover all of the bases until it is highlighted by others, those 'Others' may want to seize upon that as an opportunity for convinient attack. I want you to know that I am not one of those individuals. You and I may both be bound by different covenants but at heart we-both appriciate healthy thinking and an intellectual stimulus. My first desire upon this site is creative reasoning and I look for that in others and I see it in you too! O.k. HyperNova.