Asteriod question.

[Qfwfq]

You should avoid descriptions such as "childish and annoying" here. You might describe someone's statements as pointless, for instance, using a careful choice of words in any case.

[Pyrotex]

There are very few well established facts when it comes to space. ...This limited reliability is marketed as 100% and then used to justify speculation.

HB, you obviously don't read very much. Then you turn around and assume that your own ignorance is representative of everyone, even those who profess to be professional astronomers and have spent most of their lives engaged in this field.

 

You aren't alone. Here in the US, this is a growing trend. "Hey! I don't know much about Physics! I bet all them P H Deez don't know any better'n I do!" Ironically, this isn't happening in other developed countries. People in Europe tend to respect knowledge and science, and respect those who have the intelligence and stamina to pursue it as a career.

 

And educated well-informed people everywhere know that nothing in science is being marketed as 100% and then used to justify speculation. Your awareness of science, what it is, and how it works is sorely lacking. Your posting betrays a lot of resentment and very little information.

[Eclogite]

The reason I say this, we make all kinds of assumptions about very distant phenonema, like supernova, yet many of the closer things like planets that are much easier to see, turn out to have many new twists when investigated close up.

As Pyrotex has noted science is an expanding process. We move from the general to the specific; from the approximate to the precise. Most of the established generalties about the planets remain valid. It is the more detailed information that has changed.

The way in which these ideas have devloped is almost one hundred and eighty degrees around from what you describe. For example, the rings of Saturn were percieved, pre-Voyager, as simple thin discs of orbiting particles. Very little was predicted or conjectured as to their detailed character, origin, history and evolution. Anything that was so conjectured was offered with very large clear caveats as to its speculative nature.

When the complexity of the rings was observed close up an explosion of hypotheses occured to explain the observations. None of these were accepted as 100% true, or even 50% true. Some fell by the wayside as further observations or computer simulations discounted, them. Others strengthened in popularity and likelihood, but as has been previously mentioned science is not inclined to go for 100% pronouncements in the detail.

 

In short, your view of how science sees the Universe seems to be flawed. Perhaps you have acquired this view from the popular media, always a suspect source.:hihi: Try reading some of the original research papers on these topics. I think you will be rewarded by the depth of imaginative thinking and acknowledgement of uncertainty that you find there.

[HydrogenBond]

Your comments and criticism are not without justification. The point I was trying to make is that the theory that the asteroid belt is similar to the ring of Saturn but for the sun, if not that far fetched. As CraigD pointed out it is in the realm of reasonable possibility since the amount of heavy materials needed is a small fraction of the solar output. Even though this is not out of the realm of reasonable possiblity, it screws things up for existing theory for how the asteroid belt formed, especially its assumed connection to supernova.

 

You are correct about my lack of detailed research, but usually significant discoveries make the news. I have yet to hear about centralized remnants of the presumed supernova close by. The data used is two steps away from any locational proof of the original source, yet I am suppose to ignor that for community harmony. That's why it sounds to me like a band-aid to me to justify an iron core in the center of the earth.

[Eclogite]

The point I was trying to make is that the theory that the asteroid belt is similar to the ring of Saturn but for the sun, if not that far fetched.

I find it amazingly far fethced, for it ignores all that we know of both. The asteroid belt has all the characterisitics we would expect of one formed from the rubble of a coalescing solar system over four and a half billion years ago. Saturn's rings have all the characteristics of material formed within the last few tens of millions of years from the disruption of one or more satellites.

I have yet to hear about centralized remnants of the presumed supernova close by.

Get real HB. We moved away from the supernova(e) that generated the material from which the solar system formed, billions of years ago.

The data used is two steps away from any locational proof of the original source, yet I am suppose to ignor that for community harmony.

I have no idea what this means, even as an approximation.

That's why it sounds to me like a band-aid to me to justify an iron core in the center of the earth.

We don't justify an iron core in the centre of the Earth. We have a mountain of circumstantial evidence for an iron core. The iron core and all the other compositional peculiarities of the solar system match quite nicely with the standard model of planetary formation. True there are ambiguities and uncertainties in detail: in the micro-structure of carbonaceous chondrites for example, or the isoptope ratios of the noble gases. Clarification of these issues will occur when we have resolved the details of the the standard model.

[Harry Costas]

Hello Hydrogenbond

 

I'm very interested in your thoughts above.

 

One particular is the similarity between asteroid belt and the belts around the planets.

 

http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/downloads/ModelOfTPU_Alfv%8En.pdf

take a read of this and let me know what you think.