Embryonic Dust Cloud Theory
The Embryonic Dust Cloud theory attempts to explain how a planetary system is formed. It is defined as a cloud of Gas and Dust, which orbits a parent star. Within the cloud of Gas and Dust, planets form (from the dust itself).
This is thought to occur through gravitational forces. (Dust particles collide to form rocks, rocks collide to form planetoids and this build-up continues over a large period of time until a planet is formed through a slow, progressive, evolutionary progression.)
Roles: I will argue against the establishment of this theory. My opponent will defend this theory. Since we are debating a theory, let us admit that ultimate proof is lacking, therefore the burden of proof is irrelevant.
Rules: The opponent may include broader definitions of the dust cloud theory but must provide a source that speaks directly about the embryonic theory. I do not wish to discuss splinter theories that have departed the original model.
The comment section is off-limit to both debaters until the debate has finished. After the 5th round is completed, both members may start corresponding in the comments. Both persons agree not to post any extended arguments in the comment section while voting is still occurring.
To begin research for this topic, start here: http://www.sciencenews.org...
Credible sources may not include direct bias against a belief system. (I will not draw evidence from creationism web-sources and my opponent may not use references which attempt to directly discredit the Genesis account of creation). Scientific Journals are preferred sources, but College level research papers and media reports will suffice. Absolutely no use of Youtube material will be allowed.
Round 1- Acceptance
Round 2- Evidence/Counter Evidence
Round 3- Rebuttal/More Evidence
Round 4- Rebuttal/More Evidence
Round 5- Closing Arguments. No new evidence or arguments to be formed during this round.
Absolutely no character attacks. Argue objectively, respectfully and purposefully.
If you do not read the debate, do not vote.
Do not vote on bias. Vote on the substance of the debate. Do not....(I repeat)...do not vote out of reprisal.
I am looking forward to a fun debate.
Thank you, instigator for providing the resolution. I accept all the proposed terms.
I'd like to confirm whether the the embryonic dust cloud theory follows as the popular scientific consensus that a planetary system is created from a nebular of ionised gas where denser and more compact regions form the precursors to a planetary system's celestial bodies. I'd also like to ask who coined "Embryonic Dust Cloud Theory" as I don't want to be unintentionally misrepresenting a scientist's work which may slightly differ from the widely accepted theory.
The origin of the Nebular Hypothesis can be dated back to
Jack Lissenauer, a researcher at the NASA Ames research center,
Counter – Evidence:
The theory claims
This process is ridiculous to conceive. Imagine yourself
When particles collide, they repel. This is an equal and
The theory requires
After several billion years, we should expect the inner most
Unfortunately for this theory, Earth is the densest planet
The amount of time allotted for the planet birthing would be
It should also be noted that this theory is in conflict with the conservation
law of angular momentum. If the star is rotating clockwise, then the cloud will also spin
clockwise. Henceforth, the planets formed within will spin clockwise as well,
both in orbit and on their axis.
So far, we have found no less than six planets in retrograde oorbit.
Additionally, planets in our own solar system have opposing rotational axis
movements. While this mechanism doesn’t outright disprove an embryonic process,
it does make it more and more improbable, every time we find a retrograde
planet. The forces needed to create a retrograde event should be very, very
"planetary formation based on the collision of matter undermines some very basic, physical laws"
Cue balls are not particles of cosmic dust. Cue balls do not have areas of sufficient charge to form electrostatic attractions with one another. Cue balls are at rest as opposed to the cosmic dust particles which collide as expected by Brownian motion. Larger objects can attract one another if they have a sufficient mutual gravity, if there is not enough they will repel as occurred with the Theia-terra collision.
Your argument is like denying the existence gravity on the basis that garden peas don't orbit melons.
Regardless of reason this dust clumping phenomenon has been observed on the spectra of disks afound round T Tauri Stars. 
"The theory requires..."
A planet's distance from its star is defined by two things, its mass and its escape velocity. Their orbit radius is the point where their escape velocity is at equilibrium with the force of gravity on their mass. An estimation may be made by applying Newton's law of inertia. (an estimation because planets are drifting away so are not at rest)
If we follow your theory, per massa sola, the order would be Pluto, Mercury, Mars, Venus, Earth, Uranus, Neptune, Saturn, Jupiter. In this since you have made the assumption that the force of gravity applied by the sun on every planet is constant which is not true, objects far from the centre of gravity like Pluto (5.9 billion km) have a weaker pull exerted upon them by the Sun's gravity.
"Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum"
The law states angular momentum is conserved; it can be transferred but not created or destroyed. Which would support your conclusion:
"Henceforth, the planets formed within will spin clockwise as well, both in orbit and on their axis."
On a basic level, yes. That is assuming that all the planets in the system owe their origin from the initial collapse; that they were have always been in the wings of the original eddy. This may not always be the case. An explanation is provided by locking at the orbits of asteroids. Retrograde orbits are a common phenomenon with asteroids. This is because asteroids (and planets) are not necessarily from material from the same protoplanetary disk as the object they orbit. Matter moves and it is very likely that planets like moons and asteroids were in drift then pulled into orbit at an angle resulting in a retrograde orbit.
Another explanation is shock collision. Only two planets in our solar system are in retrograde orbit, Uranus and Venus. For Uranus, it has been proposed that a large telluric planet may have collided with it at a momentum capable of reversing the orientation of its orbit. Collisions also explain the different rotational axes found on the solar system's planets.
Explained in layman's terms here: http://www.newscientist.com...
The greatest evidence for the nebula origins of planetary systems is the present existence of its phases. Nebula, protoplanteary disks, protostars and complete systems can all be observed by gazing into the night sky, their respective compositions observable by electromagnetic wave imaging. The hypothesis simply is an application of the laws of physics and the natures of particles as we know them here on earth imposed on what we see. In recent years EM radiation spectra has allowed us to test elements of it in action.
There is also no known alternative that explains the creation of planetary system as comprehensively as embryonic cloud theory. This is our best bet, Con is yet to provide us with something superior.
Thank You, looking forward to round 2.
 - http://iopscience.iop.org... -- c2d Spitzer IRS Spectra of Disks around T Tauri Stars. I. Silicate Emission and Grain Growth
 - http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov... -- Planets and Pluto: Physical Characteristics
Rebuttal 1: "Your argument is like denying the existence gravity on the basis that garden peas don't orbit melons."
Comical, but misleading. I made no assumptions of the billiard balls orbiting each other. My demonstration served to explain the collision of rocks. The two are entirely separate forces.
Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation explains orbits ( F=G[ m_1m_2/r^2]).
The equations used to explain collision (absent any other outside forces except momentum) is
m1• v1 + m2 • v2 = m1 • v1' + m2 • v2'
This math equation dictates, that when the two rocks collide (let's call them R1 and R2), the momentum of R1 is lost and transferred to R2. The opposite is also true. R2 loses its momentum and transfers it to R1. It is an exchange of force.
This would result in one of two outcomes:
1.> If the colliding particles are equal in size and momentum, they would repel equally.
2.> If one is larger and faster than the other, the smaller, slower object would be "run over" and flung aside.
The rocks would not stick together. Claiming otherwise is to ignore the transfer of momentum.
Rebuttal 2: "Cue balls do not have areas of sufficient charge to form electrostatic attractions with one another."
Correct. Dust particles are small enough to attract via electrostatic charge. Rocks are not. Therefore, the clumping of dust has a size limit. (Mass vs. electrostatic forces).
In short, once you obtain a dust clump large enough , it's collision with another dust clump results in a destruction, not a construction.
Rebuttal 3: "In this since you have made the assumption that the force of gravity applied by the sun on every planet is constant which is not true, objects far from the centre of gravity like Pluto ."
I will concede partially here. Pluto is actually the least dense planet in our solar system and it's not actually a planet. I would explain it' existence as a "stray" that could have entered the solar system at any point in history.
The remainder of the solar system has had 4.5 billion years to be sorted by density. At the very least, the inner three planets should have a different arrangement.
Rebuttal 4: "Conservation of Angular momentum."
Uranus has an axial tilt of 98 degrees. Venus spins in retrograde motion. Triton orbits Neptune in retrograde orbit. Jupiter has 48 of it's 63 moons orbiting in retrograde orbit. Saturn has 29 of 61 satellites in retrograde orbit.
What's the explanation for all of these? The Collision crutch theory? Collisions are extremely rare. Just consider the space to mass ratio. Collisions are almost impossible, which is why we see so little evidence of orbit altering, cataclysmic, planet sized collisions. In fact, we do not have evidence for one such collision.
In 2010, half a dozen planets have where discovered by the WASP observatory to be moving in backwards orbit.
The WASP discovery can only be explained one way: These planets did not form in a Nebular proto-planetary disk.
Interplanetary Collisions could not have altered the rotation of the planets. These six solar systems only have one planet each.
Rebuttal 5: The greatest evidence for the nebula origins of planetary systems is the present existence of its phases.
Not true. No person has ever seen or monitored varying phases of an embryonic dust cloud process. We either find a spinning disk of dust or a fully formed solar system. There has never been a missing link discovery.
Within the last year, the Keppler space telescope found no less than 60+ new planets throughout a slew of new planetary systems. Each of them was found fully formed.
Also, your sources fail to support this claim. One source claims to have captured IR images of various stars with dust clouds spinning in their orbit. The source is quoted as stating:"The connection between spectral type and grain size is interpreted in terms of the variation in the silicate emission radius as a function of stellar luminosity, but could also be indicative of other spectral-type-dependent factors (e.g., X-rays, UV radiation, and stellar/disk winds)."
Silicate emission radius refers to rock radius (it must, otherwise this source makes no sense). They measured the light of the star and used it as a baseline comparator against areas of less light (supposed planets). This is not proof of planets forming. This is evidence that dust clouds are not uniform in density. It's also indicative of "other spectral-type-dependent factors (e.g., X-rays, UV radiation, and stellar/disk winds)."
As stated earlier: Jack Lissenauer, a researcher at the NASA Ames research center, is quoted as saying that he finds ”the hypothesis to be quite weak”. He continues to explain that “the idea of forming planetary cores in this manner is far from demonstrated.”
My opponent has misrepresented the evidence, confusing orbits with collisions.
My opponent admittedly concedes that the forces needed to coagulate dust are separate from the forces that supposedly form planets.
My opponent has rightfully explained that gravity varies by distance, yet has failed to provide a mechanism to excuse the absence of sorting for the inner most planets. We could excuse Pluto but what about Earth, Venus and Mercury?
My opponent has attempted to excuse the existence of retrograde activity through collision, or that the planets didn't form in the solar system at all (and like an asteroid, where sucked in later). One is an excuse, the other argues against his claim that planets are formed from an embryonic dust cloud.
How do you suppose these rouge "late arrival" planets are introduced into our solar system? Did they form in another system through the nebular hypothesis, pack their bags and leave orbit, just to travel billions of light years to settle in our system?
This debate is getting quite interesting. I'd like to thank my opponent for taking this seriously and offering real competition.
http://iopscience.iop.org... (opponents source)
On Rock Collision, Dust and Cue Balls (Rebuttal 1 and 2)
The fusion of two objects has nothing to do with their size. If the common gravity of the two objects is large enough they will collide and fuse. Thus is an application of inverse-square law in the context of gravity. It reads as:
"The gravitational attraction force between two point masses is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of their separation distance. The force is always attractive and acts along the line joining them from their centre." 
In a system with very few or weak perturbations such as space matter clumps together, may it be a planet, star cluster or galaxy, the result is the same. Their masses merely determines their momentum when they collide.
Your manipulation of Law of Universal Gravitation is fallacious in that you pose a false dichotomy, there are other options. If one object is at rest or has little momentum (R1) and another object (R2) collides with it. If R2’s momentum is insignificant, although its momentum is still transferred to R1, it is absorbed with little or no effect. In reality this is like throwing a water balloon on a brick wall, firing a bullet into a charging person or a large meteor crashing down on a planet. These objects don’t just bounce back (option 1) or get over run/pushed back (option 2) they fuse or penetrate so long as the momentum is at the right ratio. If Con disagrees I'd like him to explain physics of how bullets get lodged inside objects.
To mathematically express the chance of fusion, repulsion or destruction the tensile strength of both objects, the impact angle of collision and momentum is required.
As for the rarity of collisions, collisions are only rare now in the present because our solar system is developed and stable; the period of turbulence has passed. For the detailed process, look up accession. Your curious.astro.cornell. link appears to agree.
I repeat: the plants are in the orders they are in thanks to their mass AND escape velocity and are NOT placed by order of mass.
There is no reason the inner three planets should have a different arrangement because the nuclear hypothesis doesn't require they be in order of mass. If fact, it doesn't imply any sort of arrangement at all.
Most of the moons in the solar system were once asteroids pulled into orbit. They didn't have to have collided with the planet they now orbit, merely pulled into the gravitational field of that planet. Now, picture in the earlier days of the solar system, what would happen if two larger bodies from the asteroid belt collided and by circumstance released frozen material that would become an atmosphere as they moved into a warmer zone? Another idea, probably the most prevailing, makes use of 'chaotic zones' between planets (see orbital resonances); Venus reverting the direction of its orbit after entering one of these zones. The introduction to this  case study goes through the history of thought on the matter.
Lastly, there has never been a planetary system where every planet has been found in retrograde orbit. That would admittedly cast some doubt on the physics involved with how dust clouds collapse but would not be enough to disprove hypothesis in its entirety.
Your source from National Geographic says 6 of the 27 planets were in retrograde orbit, hardly a majority. 
"We either find a spinning disk of dust or a fully formed solar system. There has never been a missing link discovery"
False. Protoplanetary disks have been found around the stars HH-30, Vega, Alphecca, Fomalhaut along aside a larger gas planets. This image was taken by the Hubble Space telescope of the disk around the star Fomalhaut. [http://spacetelescope.org...]  It shows the planet Fomalhaut b, the largest and most obvious of the planets, in relation to disk that surrounds the star.
On the Spectra of Disks around T Tauri Stars. The principle point lies in this: The observed 10 and 20 μm silicate feature strengths/shapes are consistent with source-to-source variations in grain size. A large fraction of the features are weak and flat, consistent with micron-sized grains indicating fast grain growth (from 0.1 to 1.0 μm in radius). This is precisely in keeping with the idea that there is an accretion disk and that the gust/grains that compose it are in fact clumping.
Con has made and argument based principally on the misuse of laws of physics and a denial of occurring phenomenon. His points are principally non sequiturs caused by a ignorance of fact. Despite all this it is important to point out that Con has not provided us with an alternative explanation for the formation of planetary systems. I ask him now, before it is too late, if planets and stars were not formed from nebular how were they formed? Because at the moment the resolution remains affirmed, no alternative cause for planetary systems has been provided and the science for it remains intact. If Con does not provide another explanation or disproves the Embryonic Dust Cloud Theory with complete confidence then it will be my victory by default.
I also ask that in future rounds Con integrates his sources into his text because in the form they exist in now they appear to be random.
 -- http://en.wikipedia.org...
 -- http://www.imcce.fr...
 -- http://news.nationalgeographic.com...
 -- http://spacetelescope.org...
Since we really don’t have the space to waste on arguing about water balloons and brick walls, I will depend
on the common logic of the voter to refute that the “planet vs. meteor” dynamic is far different from the “Brick wall vs. Water balloon” dynamic. (It’s more of a “Brick wall vs. Brick”dynamic).
1.>Collision based on shrinking mutual orbit:
Celestial bodies in relative orbit do not simply collide. They engage in a hyperbolic
orbital relationship. (The smaller object slingshots around the larger body).
In a frictionless environment, this would be an exhaustive process before the two planetoids
finally unite into a central body. The two masses would endure an elastic orbit
for an unknown amount of time. It’s simply not observable outside of N-Body
simulations (which are highly inaccurate). However, once the two planets
draw near enough to actually cause collision, both bodies will become super-heated
and will start to vaporize and/or melt. Once collision has occurred, the cores and
mantles of both objects will mix, resulting in a non-uniform
heterodyned planetoid . A liquid core would be impossible for the
finished product, since the core material of both planets would have cooled
after the heterodyning process.
If this is how the Earth formed, then the evidence should be easily obtainable.
2.>Inner temperature of the protoplanetary disk:
This is estimated to vary between 500-1500K
Outer disk 50-150k Celsius Fahrenheit
The melting point of Iron (1.5k Celsius)
Based on the “Iron Catastrophe” in collaboration
According a statement by the American Geophysical Union, the collision of superheated
“Atmophiles and volatiles come along for the ride, and can find themselves in
3.>Refuting: As for the rarity of collisions, collisions are only rare now in the present
because our solar system is developed and stable;
Using a source, display the commonality of solar system where the planetoids are “still”
subject to heavy bombardment by the unstable, embryonic nature of their environment.
I will predict, based on my disbelief of the Nebular Hypothesis, that you will find the following:
4.>The opponent claimed: Lastly, there has never been a
 As explained in the previous round, the planets are listed as:
WASP 2b – Orbiting Binary Star System WASP-2A. Only Planet in orbit
WASP 8b – Orbiting Star System WASP-8. Only Planet in orbit.
WASP 15b – Orbiting Star System WASP-15. Only Planet in orbit.
WASP 17b – Orbiting Star System WASP-17. Only planet in orbit.
WASP 33b – Orbiting Star System HD 15082. Only planet in orbit.
WASP 5b – Orbiting Star System WASP-5. Only Planet in orbit.
Conclusion: I'm not going to be as audacious and condescending as my opponent, by declaring a premature victory. That serves to show a real lack of respect. Instead, I'd like to point out the consistent misrepresentation of data, the constant assumption of my ignorance and his superior understanding, and the purposeful ignoring of the data supplied.
Alright, before I start I'd like to reiterate what the Pro position means. Cosmology is a science, a science that is by no means complete, far from it in fact. There's a lot that we don't know and have no means to explain -- but we're working on it. Planetary systems, ours included, must have an origin or otherwise must have always existed. The nebular hypothesis, like you quoted, is considered by some as weak but it is the strongest and most plausible explanation we have. There are elements within it which don't quite add up and ideas that cannot be reconciled but writ in large the process makes sense. Evidence for this belief makes up the Pro argument.
I repeat and vehemently stress that it is highly important that Con provides an alternative hypothesis for the origin of planetary systems, for he weakens his argument significantly if he makes it one that is purely reactionary/antagonistic to mine. It is true, no idea is better than a bad idea but often one will often find that favour is with those who provide a superior idea themselves.
Where do planetary systems come from? If not from Nebula, where?
Something I should have done much, much, earlier back in round 2:
1. Nebula clouds exist.
2. Planetary systems exist.
3. Their intermediate states also exist (accession disks, debris disks, planetesimals, protostars ect.).
:::: post hoc ergo propter hoc*
4. The various relevant fields of science offer explanations the propagating functions of the Nebula hypothesis.
5. Therefore it is reasonable to assume planetary systems came/come from Nebula.
* points 1 to 3 with "post hoc ergo propter hoc" as their conclusion form an argument in their own right. If I were speaking of absolutes this would be fallacious but since I am not, the mere existence of these phases, even with a complete ignorance of classical mechanics and other ideas that are used to explain change, gives evidence to support the idea that these states are related to one another. This is why Swedenborg, Kant and the like were able to argue fairly successfully for the hypothesis long before EM spectra images, satellite missions and contemporary observatories were about. 
If one takes point 4 as an axiom the syllogism would be an affirmative. It is fitting then that 4 is the point that proves as the basis of this debate; the science of it being what we have spent the last three rounds debating.
All you have said here are but possibilities relevant to diverse conditions. Without details you can't know for certain – sometimes they may engage in "a hyperbolic orbital relationship", "unite into a central body" or "endure an elastic orbit". The point has always been that the conditions of an "Embryonic Dust Cloud" allows for dust to form into greater pieces. Also:
"However, once the two planets draw near enough to actually cause collision, both bodies will become super-heated and will start to vaporize and/or melt."
So you concede that large objects may attract and collide purely by their common gravitation, like I said in the previous round?
Earth Formation and the Core
Interesting. I can't seem to find this idea of a "non-uniform heterodyned planetoid" anywhere online. It does not appear in your sources [Con - R4] either. See the section directly below on my thoughts on the thing.
-- "We should see large volumes of core material mixed into the mantle and a small or entirely absent liquid core."
The chemical composition of the core and mantle is virtually the same, Nickel and Iron in different physical states.
-- "our core is still fluidic"
False, our inner core is a dense solid thanks to gravity.
-- "our mantle does not indicate heterodyning between multiple silica source"
Silica is barely exists in the mantle for it found in the lithosphere. I can't find the word silica/silicon dioxide in any of your sources.
Heterodyning and the Mantle
Okay, what are these "silicate planets"? Silicon oxides and salts are found on the lithosphere which has been changing over the 4 billon years of the Earth's history (see: plate tectonics). Now the Iron Catastrophe (explained quite well by Con’s R4-1 source) is an explanation of why elements exist in the various strata of the earth. In a nut shell, over time the heavy elements (like iron, hence name) sink into the core and the light elements rise up into the lithosphere and atmosphere. Now silicon, a light solid, rises into the lithosphere, it is shifted on plates which are constantly being created and destroyed. Naturally, it would be impossible to find heterodyning in the lithosphere's sediments caused by the collisions because they ended over 4 billion years ago. The evidence would be destroyed.
As far as the other planets are concerned the telluric planets would have also went through a similar 'Catastrophe' although the history of their geology is far unless understood.
Now the case study you linked (Disequilibration by Planetary Collision) is a follow up to Asphaug's 2006 work on Planetary Collisions. First, I should point out that these are planetary collisions not planetoid collisions, the planets are already established. You will not find planetoid collisions that "upset the apple cart by bringing core material, late in the game, into mixture with mantle products" [from Con R4-4]. Conveniently, a planary collision is thought to have occurred with Earth (the theia-terra collision), Earth absorbed Theia's lighter chemicals and a significant amount of its mantle until it became the moon. One set of chemical-geological evidence for the collision is here.  Despite this no one expects what you do with silicon heterodyning.
Well, I cannot refer to another planetary system because no asteroids from other systems have been observed (due to their small size). I can only refer you to information from the history of our solar system. The highly esteemed 'Nice Model' gives a history of our bombardment phase.  Evidence for the bombardment period are:
-- The radiometric ages of impact melt rocks that were collected during the Apollo/Luna missions. 
-- Luna meteorites 
-- Craters dated to ~3.9 Ga across the telluric planets.
Interesting findings. What I meant were systems with several planets, in which the majority of the planets were in retrograde orbit. Binary systems such as those found by SuperWasp, composed of one Star and Large Gas Giant always suffer from gravitational perturbations from each others gravity (see Rotational Brownian motion). This is the reason for their retrograde orbits. Remember that SuperWASP gaze is limited, it can only detect super large gas planets which are closer to stars than telluric planets like Earth.
My opponent has taken my good faith suggestions and understood them something far more ignoble. It is was my belief and is still my believe that Pro is at serious jeopardy of failing to meet what his position, that the embryonic dust cloud theory and nebula hypothesis by extension fail to provide a plausible explanation for the origins of planetary systems. He has made some thought out critiques of the science involved:
-- Dust Particles and Gravitation
-- Planetary Arrangement
-- Retrograde Motion
-- Binary Systems with objects planets in retrograde orbit.
But even if they points were correct they are all ultimately little things, hit the nail on the head and say where planetary systems came from other than from nebula.
Anyway, how you wish to argue is your prerogative. I thought I was helping.
I look forward to the conclution.
 -- www.wbabin.net/physics/abruzzo7.pdf -- A History of the Pro-Argument.
 -- http://adsabs.harvard.edu... -- Terrestrial accretion rates and the origin of the Moon
 -- http://docmadhattan.fieldofscience.com... -- On the 'Nice Model'
 -- www.planetary.brown.edu/pdfs/3276.pdf --
 -- http://www.sciencemag.org... -- Age of Luna Meteorites
I would like to finish this debate with an exhausted smile. I was quite happy that my opponent was able to entertain this debate with his full strength.
Reviewing the arguments:
I argued that collision of larger particles is destructive, not constructive. I explained the forces governing collision (m1• v1 + m2 • v2 = m1 • v1' + m2 • v2'). I provided examples which accurately display collision and I refuted the counterargument.
The counterargument was: "If the common gravity of the two objects is large enough they will collide and fuse."
"In reality this is like throwing a water balloon on a brick wall, firing a bullet into a charging person."
Conclusion: As I've stated before, my opponent used false imagery to support a broken theory. Collision dynamics between large bodies of mass is correctly analogized as a brick colliding with a brick wall, or firing a bullet into a charging iron mass. He assumes the voter will be satisfied by this "water balloon" pseudo-science.
I argued that retrograde motion not only hinders the theory, but that it destroys the theory in it's current incarnation. I have provided quotes from NASA engineer/astrophysicist Jack Lissenauer, who stated emphatically: "the idea of forming planetary cores in this manner is far from demonstrated." I have also provided examples in our own solar system, I have provided examples in six other SUPERWASP systems and if my opponent had done his research, he would know that WASP-8 has multiple planets in retrograde (something he admitted to be the breaking component of this theory).
The counterargument was: "What I meant were systems with several planets, in which the majority of the planets were in retrograde orbit."
"Planetary systems, ours included, must have an origin or otherwise must have always existed. The nebular hypothesis, like you quoted, is considered by some as weak but it is the strongest and most plausible explanation we have."
Conclusion: Not only has my opponent failed to follow through in researching the SuperWASP observatory findings (multiplanetary retrograde systems have been found), he makes a startling proclamation. He summarizes that the Nebular Hypothesis must be true because planets exist and nothing else makes sense. Is that science? We don't understand why we have solar systems, so our vague, unproven guess must be right? At this point, his argument left science and entered the realm of religion. He admitted, that he must take this theory on good faith, because nothing else makes sense.
Ladies and Gentlemen, the retrograde activity is the nail in the coffin. It's not by my witt or intelligence that I may seal the coffin. It's by the discovery of real science at the hands of men and women much smarter than I. Do not mistake this for a declaration of victory. I am, however, confident that my opponent has utterly failed to refute this evidence.
I argued that collision of planetoids would mix the mantle and the core, based on the arguments of provided sources. I offered the liquid state of our planetary core as proof. We know our planet has a liquid core, because our planet has a magnetic field. My opponent then attempts to sway the voter with half-truths by stating: "our inner core is a dense solid thanks to gravity." That is true, our inner core is "thought" to be solid, but the inner core is not the entire construct. We also have a liquid outer core. I will not provide extended argument on this, since it's the final round. I do, however, urge the voter to look deeper than the surface arguments made by my opponent.
I thank the voting public for hanging on. Unless you have a passion for the subject, this would be a dry and long-winded debate.
My opponent has argued well and I have absolute respect for him. I thoroughly enjoyed this debate.
Thank you for your time,
An Evaluation of Argument
Con's argument has largely been a critique of insignificant* elements within the nebular hypothesis, discrepancies which alone do not disprove the theory at all. The exception to this rule was the contention on the nature of gravitation, something the hypothesis depends. Allowing the four rounds the points may be divided into four major fields of argument: i) collisions, bricks and gravitation, ii) planetary arrangement, iii) retrograde motion, iv) heterodyning, silica and the iron catastrophe.
*By insignificant I mean that even if they were sound criticisms they target the post-event material (see retrograde orbits and heterodyning), as opposed to reasons why planets can never form from nebula.
Below is a summary of the subjects discussed.
>>> 1. Legal Gravity <<<
Brick vs Brick
Yes, a Brick would virtually never fuse with another brick here on earth but such a reduction is misleading when gravitational laws are applied in a universal context. In space this is simply not the case, gravitation in a system without permutations means that they will always attract. The greatest perturbation here on earth is the earth's gravity. In space this attraction is referred to gravitation accretion, as I said in round 3. Accretion is the same process that makes areas of humidity group to form clouds (although water polarity plays a part). Matter clumps together when the gravitation interference is negligible.
Applied Classical Mechanics
(m1*v1 + m2*v2 = m1*v1' + m2 *v2') === simplified to === P1 + P2 = P1' + P2'
Well done, momentum is translated between colliding objects. Your conclusion that this means collisions are purely repulsive or destructive is false and doesn't follow from this equation. I can't mathematically express a collision as it is because to do so requires the tensile strength of both objects, the impact angle of collision, the momentum of collision and to factor in compression. It's a hell of a task. I will say though that if your conclusions were taken to be true it is impossible for any matter in the world to collide and fuse, literally, always, universally, impossible.
This argument was maintained throughout by Con.
>>> 2. Planetary Arrangement <<<
In round 2 Con made a point that planets should be sorted by mass and density, he cited hydrological sorting as evidence for this phenomenon. This was untrue, planets are arranged by their mass and escape velocity; when gravity exerted and the escape force are at equilibrium the planet says at a constant radius from the sun (the progressive drift away is explained by the change in gravity exerted). No one should expects the planets to be sorted by mass.
Introduced as the second argument of round 1. Con stopped using this argument after round 3 and ignored it as if it was never said from then on.
>>> 3. Retrograde Motion <<<
Retrograde motion, even if it occurred in every planetary system, does not disprove the nebular hypothesis. It would strongly imply that the standard fluid dynamic model is false when applied to protostars for a currently unknown reason.
To understand why Con makes this such a big deal of this question must be asked: Why does retrograde motion (planets spinning backward) mean that planets did not form from nebula? This has to do with fluid dynamics and the original eddy around the principle star. Most all the planets in the system should spin in the original direction of the eddy did. Of course like described for Venus and Uranus, later collisions, gravitational chaos regions and some other things (Refer to Round 3) may wack some planets of their natural course but reverse orbits shouldn't be the norm and they are not. Most planets orbit they way fluid dynamics predicts, some do not, we have an explanation for almost all we find however.
WASP-8 has a single known planet, WASP-8b. [http://exoplanet.eu...]
Introduced as the final argument in round 1 and maintained throughout.
>>> 4. Heterodyning <<<
"We should see large volumes of core material mixed into the mantle and a small or entirely absent liquid core."
This is point made in Round 4 reiterated in Round 5. What I have against this is that because the core and mantle are of the same substance mixing cannot be detected since the concentrations of elements are in equilibrium. Furthermore there is no explicit boundary between the two merely a range were matter has a different viscosity. Sure, at the moment of collision there would have been a massive shock and active heterodyning of the internal layers but since there have been no collisions that have literally shocked us to the core in over 4 billion years there would be no evidence of this thanks to the convection of matter. After skimming though 4 years worth of abstracts from Asphaug, not once did he claim anything of the sort.
On half truths - you called the core a fluid when it has elements of both, in that spirit you would be a guilty as I. The existence of an inner core that is "thought" to be solid is just as true as the idea that the outer core is "thought" to be a fluid and is "thought" to be the cause of earth's amplified gravity.
The Silicate Evidence
Virtually no silica from 3 billion years ago exists. Con never responded to this in his conclusion.
When I previously said Con's argument was "based on an ignorance of science", I meant this not maliciously but as an objective truth. Here are the prime cases of were Con has made factual errors:
The process of gravitational accretion; that bricks in space collide like bricks on earth. [a]
All collisions are purely repulsive or subducting. [b]
The shaped planets to be sorted by density and mass. [c]
A planetary system with at least two planets has a majority of its planets in retrograde orbit exists. [d]
The evidence of planetary collision would be mixed mantle and core. [e]
The mantle can indicate heterodyning between multiple silica sources. [f]
Evidence for [a-f] - refer to this: http://www.debate.org...
These 'truths' are essential, they are the only way Con can make a case against the nebular hypothesis, if they are false there is no case.
"The gravitational attraction force between two point masses is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of their separation distance. The force is always attractive and acts along the line joining them from their centre."
There are some shady ends, as always, the only one is expressed in this debate are the very rare retrograde orbits. But this is illustrative of science itself, there's always more to explain.
I thank Con for taking the time to debate this topic, you the reader for taking the time to read this much prose and for your general interest in cosmology.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||0|