Snorkelbottoms Scientific Theory

@Snorkelbottom Sorry, I was just asking if the theory ties in with the Greek story of Cronos as that appears to be about planetary observations.

Fill us in xenodochy, I'm not familiar with Cronos' theory...

@Snorkelbottom Here goes: Cronos, leader of the Titans and father of the Greek gods and goddesses, when told that he would be deposed by his son, just as he had deposed his father, Uranus, by castrating him at the instigation of his mother, ate his children as soon as they were born to forestall the prophesy. Fortunately they remained alive in his stomach. When Zeus, the sixth child, was about to be born, Cronos’ wife gave him a stone wrapped in bandages to swallow and he did so, thinking it was his son. When Zeus grew up he gave his father an emetic and out came the stone followed by Zeus’ five brothers and sisters. Then the war between the Titans began, Cronos on one side and Zeus on the other, which Zeus and his brothers and sisters won. Under the reign of Cronos, mankind knew a “Golden Age” but once Zeus took power life became very hard and humans degenerated. Other civilisations’ myths speak of different “Ages” of mankind. Maybe these legends are really about how the solar system was formed and some truly cataclysmic events. As the theory mentions Uranus and Venus (the Roman name for Aphrodite, the Greek goddess said to be born from Uranus’ severed genitals) it occurred to me that there might be a link, especially given the Greek myth at the heart of the movie. Uranus and Venus/Aphrodite are related in the myth and are the planetary exceptions in the theory for their unusual movements compared to the other planets. Are they the flaw in accretion theory? As for the math … Ouch! Going for a lie down now.

also, for the record Cronos incarnates 'time' (yeah chronometer, chronology and all alikes are using it as prefix) so there goes the analogy/symbol of Cronos, as time eating its own children I used to hate and be the worst you'd know at math, but it all goes better when you work first on figuring yourself your interest for the "story", whatever the problem is. Then, don't try to "read maths", just re-tell them in your own way. Dumb them down to whatever level you need, just like teachers did with apples to get us to count. Then, when you can actually visualize stuff, you're good. Oh well, am really no one to try and give tips on that, actually... on a side note @xenodochy, "from Uranus' severed genitals" makes me like you and think you have some serious paraphiliae going on. [also yes, I'll stick with those jokes each time such an opportunity is given to me!]

@iapetus Perhaps the Greek Titans, Cronos and all, myths are all allegory where we’ve been given the key but not the lock. Instead of children swallowed and sons and daughters re-emerging, read planets. This could mean that there was a particular planetary alignment developing over time (Cronos/Chronus). The Greeks knew five planets in their astronomy, the five visible to the naked eye: Mars, Mercury, Venus, Jupiter and Saturn. Next, Cronos swallowed a “stone in swaddling clothes”. This was therefore something which resembled a planet so maybe it was our moon. Zeus (the god of the sky) then fed Cronos an emetic. Paraphrase it as the sky formed because of the presence of the moon, redefining time. There was then the war of the Titans, which, continuing the allegory, could indicate tremendous global upheaval following a moon’s arrival in orbit. Zeus prevailed (we had sky – not the satellite broadcaster yet though) and mankind fell out of the Golden Age, where there were no seasons and everyone was happy; children springing up out of the ground. Perhaps this means that we had not yet realised how children are created (this knowledge being original sin?). Zeus also brought the four seasons (not the 60s pop group or the hotel chain) and boy! was life tough under his rule: growing crops, building houses and struggling against the elements. Perhaps Snorkelbottom’s theory reveals consequences or traces of the Greek’s allegory mathematically?

Let the games begin... ...the OP has been updated with part 1 of the theory.

There are lots of Solar Sistems with gas giants closer to their sun(s) than being outter planets. How does that fit in the overall theory?

@ David 1... Depends upon the system - for example when our sun goes cuckoo in about 5 billion years it will most likely engulf the 3 inner planets, and maybe earth too... then you would have a system similar to what you just explained.

nicely said. You sir, are a genious

I wouldn't go that far David 1, I just say what I see - just so happens that what I see isn't the currently accepted theory. I'm not comparing myself here, but Einstein did the same with the phrase "space and time are relative to one another".

excellent theory, going to come back and re-preview it later tonight for sure

{EDIT: Oops, apparently this thread's been dead for a couple of months before dear ol' me indulged in necromancy. Well, what's done is done so I'll leave my rant here.} Oh-kay. Number one, if you are actually serious, this has no place here. Go to physicsforums dot org or whatever, and/or get this thing published. I have a suspicion as to why you likely don't, but that's merely me being paranoid. Next. Funny how in one thread claiming scientific aspirations, there's not one equation more complicated than simple division to see how many years ago a hypothetical scenario of Earth getting vomited out of the sun happened. For example, you claim Accretion is wrong because fact 1 and 2. Ok. Show "me", your hypothetical scientifically minded reader, equations/simulation models that show why what we see is inconsistent with accretion. I guarantee you none of us here- including you- is competent to follow those equations, but that's because you've chosen the wrong venue for them. Whatever, let's postulate that accretion is wrong anyway, and follow your theory. There is no mechanism you propose for material ejection from the Sun. If such a mechanism existed, why the vast differences between the giants (they are -very different- from each other in terms of mass and composition) as well as between the giants and the inner planets? How come the Earth's core hasn't cooled off long ago, since your spiral model (correction) retrodicts it's THOUSANDS of BILLIONS of years old? Incidentally, how come there's "ANY" Uranium left on Earth at all? The estimation for the age of the Earth, for once a topic that's basic college level stuff, was done by noticing the ratio of Uranium/Uranium decay elements in ores, and knowing Uranium's half-life. If you dispute that estimate, you have a problem with pretty much the whole of nuclear physics. Assuming the Earth is thousand-billion-year-old, even long lived radioactive elements like Uranium and Thorium would be incredibly rare. Next, there's no mechanism that would make a planet explode from the inside. Sorry, there isn't. There's no fusion going on, there's only heat that radiates off, 'harmlessly' as far as the planet itself is concerned. What happens to the surface aka eruptions is another matter. It takes a lot of energy to pull a planet apart, and once apart, gravity will pull it back together. Your phase 5 contradicts basic physics. Assuming your phase 5 happened, it doesn't explain why the gas giants are mostly gaseous. Your scenario says, boom, then the atmosphere was shot out into space, ergo, gas giant. Well, we can tell that the gas in Jupiter is most of its mass. That means the original planet was mostly gas too, anyway. Phase 7, you claim that coldness and gravitational shrinkage compresses the giants eventually into the kind of objects we see in the Kuiper belt. Ok, but those objects are much less massive than gas giants. Where does the mass go, what chucks it there? So maybe accretion theory has problems. I honestly do not know, and you aren't helping. I can say that there's a huge other body of science that is inconsistent with the idea of planets being emitted, in thousand-billion-year spirals, from the Sun. Rethink, revise, and after having done so, get thee to a physics publication so that you can get actual input.

@BLANDCorporatio; No such thing as dead threads here. We actually encourage continued conversation on all threads. :)

@ Blandcorporatio... Firstly, the reason I posted this theory on this site is not because it is underdeveloped or trollish, as your "Number One" statement is probably referring to. I decided to show this theory with the members of this site, as many, being science fiction fans, also like to delve into real science. Nothing more, nothing less. Secondly, your "rant" as you called it, mentions that should this be a serious theory there should be equations to back it up, simulations, models etc. While the rest of your post strangely attempts to pick apart my theory in the same basic "casual" fashion in which the theory is written. I have not posted any equations, not because I don't understand them, but because most members would not understand such high level mathematics, this thread was written casually so that even a "moron" could understand what was being theorized, this being a science fiction fan site after all. Finally, when reading your post it almost comes across as a personal attack as you constant reference the OP, myself - as in "you say this, you dont do that". When debating anything on these forums, please refrain from addressing the postee in such a manner, and please address the post subject manner - discuss the topic, not the individual whom posted the topic. ... It doesn't really bother me that you assume that I do not know what I am talking about, this is not the first time such scientific arguments have arose on this site. Unlike most that partake in such "debates" I do not hold the scientific community in thehigh esteem in which they hold themselves - if a theory does not make logical sense, I look at the evidence, the truth, observations, provable known facts and use them to hypothesize a more plausible theory than that which is currently accepted. 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... A) The planets were born from the sun B) Therefore the Accretion Theory is wrong The rest is simply means by which to explain what can be observed.

[b]Snorkelbottom[/b], I dare say that if you think a statement of the kind "you say X, you don't do Y" is a personal attack when discussing a scientific theory, that is your problem, not mine. It is a statement of basic fact. If you are serious about pursuing a theory, then there's several things you absolutely must do. And the 'attacks' in my post only sketch a beginning to a remedy. You seem to disregard the scientific establishment. Great. In that case, here's another statement of fact- you are dangerously close to fulfilling the criteria for quack science. I'm not saying that- the people who make such lists of criteria do, because there are many people with wild theories, yet most share a few basic traits. Assuming accretion theory is wrong- [b]and I may be willing to grant that[/b]- is not equivalent to having your theory correct. It has bigger, more obvious problems than accretion ever did. And, and, and- you and I both agree this is a SF site, with readers that are mostly casually interested in science. What kind of input are you expecting, for you to have put this theory here? Did you only want praise, or did you perhaps expect criticism (which would be VERY brave of you and what a scientist should actually be like)? Then be prepared for criticism, but I'd recommend that for genuine input, you do get over your mistrust of experts and speak in venues more specialized to the topic of your theory.

Okay BC, Firstly, I posted this theory to share it, and debate it intelligently and in a civil fashion. Yet, despite the fact the you don't seem to understand/care for you own insulting manner ("you problem, not mine", "you are dangerously close to fulfilling the criteria for quack science"), you assume to be learned enough to debate the matter at hand - the topic of this thread - my theory. As stated in my last post... [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...[/b] [b][/b] [b]1 - The planets were born from the sun[/b] [b][/b] [b]2 - Therefore the Accretion Theory is wrong[/b] The rest, of my theory (see OP) is simply means by which to explain what can be observed. You BC however, argue that my conclusions are misguided, faulty - "It has bigger, more obvious problems than accretion ever did". Your main problem seems to lie with Stage 5 onward, AKA the Gas giants. So if the above (in bold) is observable and logical fact, explain to me how a Gas giant comes into existence, other than by losing its solid and liquid matter, and having its gaseous matter expanded outward.

[b]@BLANDCorporatio[/b], All science is guess work, nobody knows for sure. All "facts" are relative. But your responses are coming across as derogatory to a third party viewer, so please tone it down. We absolutely welcome "smart" comments, but not so much "smart-ass" comments. Debate your heart out, but keep it respectful.

[b]Snorkelbottom[/b], phase 5 is just one of many problems. All of your phases are problematic. Sometimes the problems are more obvious. And, here's the thing. It's not fair, but it's the way it is. [b]I[/b] don't need to explain anything. How did the gas giants form? "I don't know" is a valid answer. You think you have an answer however. But then, [b]you[/b] must now explain where the energy to remove the 'solid' and 'liquid' matter came from, and where that matter went. You need to explain why there's a huge mass difference between Jupiter and Earth. Because you seem to confuse mass with volume. Jupiter isn't just large, puffed out gas. It's really, really massive. I see you also insist that you wanted intelligent and civil debate. Everyone says they do, but it would be a lot easier to believe it if you had a bit more respect for the work of many other people. And not just astronomers, because your theory flies against evidence collected by many different fields of science. When that happens, it may not be fair, and it may not sound civil, but it's you who have to do the explaining. All that work may well be wrong- but addressing why is not something to leave as an afterthought. Finally, a comment. I don't assume to be learned enough in accretion theory to see why it would be wrong. I do however- and so do you- presume to be sufficiently knowledgeable of basic scientific method and basic scientific fact, to be able to do the kinds of basic sanity checks that engineering graduates are expected to be able to do. Your theory fails them. There's no way to sugar coat this.

Yet more audacious, needless attacks, but I will ignore them... So, despite that you do not state why, you call my entire theory invalid, and when asked why you just shrug your shoulders in a carefree manner. Surely if you think the theory false there must be reasons, unless I have wronged you in a past life. Lets highlight your mention of Jupiter... [i]you must now explain where the energy to remove the 'solid' and 'liquid' matter came from, and where that matter went. You need to explain why there's a huge mass difference between Jupiter and Earth. Because you seem to confuse mass with volume. Jupiter isn't just large, puffed out gas. It's really, really massive.[/i] The answer is simple... The liquid and solid matter were thrown out into space from an explosion, an explosion from the force of millions of years worth of trapped heat and gas under the crust of the planet. Mercury, Venus and Earth have tectonic plates and volcanoes by which to expel excess heat and gas, Mars does not, as did Jupiter (and the other planets). The force of such a blast caused by millions of years with no volcanic or tectonic activity would be enough to expel all liquid and solid matter from the confines of the planets core. The gaseous atmosphere would be expelled to, but because of its lack of mass compared to the liquid and solid matter, the gases of the atmosphere would not have been able to build up enough velocity, nor momentum to escape the gravitational pull of the planets exposed core. The exposed core by which creates the illusion of the Jupiter insane mass, for when scientists refer to Jupiter's mass they are in fact referring to its massive gravitational pull, created because of its exposed core. All of the above makes sense both logically and in line with what can be observed, do you agree?

[b]Snorkelbottom[/b], from my very first post I made a long list of problems to your hypothesis. They're there, for each phase. I don't remember being wronged by you in a past life, so I'll try to diminish the abrasion I emit. I'm not, in a care-free manner, dismissing you. I'm saying that I'm not the one who proposes an answer to a problem, because if I were, I'd also have to follow that answer's implications and compare it with the data. Doing that, for the answer you propose, reveals some problems. Mars, among other things, has no magnetic field. This is, to the best available models currently, strong indication that it's internally cool. Relatively cool, compared to the Earth. Further, the mechanism for explosion is rapid expansion in volume. Liquids and solids don't expand as much. 'Water' doesn't explode, (contained) steam does. And there's no indication that an explosive boiler of that magnitude exists in the Earth, or Mars. Assuming there's a 'boiler', why aren't there tectonic plates? All that supposed inner turmoil won't magically decide to keep itself contained, instead it will heat against, and push against, the surface, keeping it cracked and volcanic. Tectonic plates exist because the mantle contains liquid layers, layers that are kept liquid because of heat. Underground convection currents keep things mixed up, bringing heat from the center towards the surface. There are thermal differences of course, but if the surface got to cool, then that's an indication that the core also cooled. Otherwise, where did the extra insulation come from? The bit about Jupiter's gravity being created by its exposed core is a bit confusing. Exposing the core won't make it more 'gravitationally active', or anything like that. So if Jupiter 'appears massive', that's because it is. If you're measuring Jupiter's gravity from outside of Jupiter, then the only thing that matters is its mass. So the tl;dr version, is that the explosive phase 5, and subsequent gas giant formation, falls foul of geology and physics. So at the risk of once again seeming to attack you no, what you claim doesn't make sense either logically or is in line with what can be observed.

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.