| Revision as of 22:10, 10 November 2014 editKheider (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers31,885 edits :Exoplanets are simply not as well studied as our own system. It difficult to know the precise mass and diameter of most of these exo-planets, much less where and how big their various equivalents of the asteroid belt(s) and Kuiper belt(s) are← Previous edit |
Revision as of 12:57, 11 November 2014 edit undoWavyinfinity (talk | contribs)220 edits →ExoplanetsNext edit → |
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 28: |
Line 28: |
|
|
|
|
|
:Exoplanets are simply not as well studied as our own system. It difficult to know the precise mass and diameter of most of these exo-planets, much less where and how big their various equivalents of the ](s) and ](s) are (might be). We simply need to know more. We also need to better understand ] as in the case of the ]. -- ] (]) 22:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
:Exoplanets are simply not as well studied as our own system. It difficult to know the precise mass and diameter of most of these exo-planets, much less where and how big their various equivalents of the ](s) and ](s) are (might be). We simply need to know more. We also need to better understand ] as in the case of the ]. -- ] (]) 22:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::The Nice model does not solve the main issues. How did the planets lose their angular momentum? How do 1cm sized particles clump together? How do rocks and minerals form absent the activation energy required for non-spontaneous chemical combination reactions? How do gas giants form from a quickly disappearing disk? It appears to me that the Nice model does not solve anything, but only adds more problems, because now we have to explain how stable orbits become unstable just so they be arranged in the way we see them. ] (]) 12:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Chemistry == |
|
|
|
|
|
Why is there no mention of chemistry? Are not asteroids comprised of rocks/minerals? The gravitational potential energy of a large asteroid does not contain the activation energy to synthesize rocks (non-spontaneous chemical reactions) in outer space. Why is this also completely ignored? Or am I wrong to consider science as a multidisciplinary subject? ] (]) 12:09, 11 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Thermodynamics == |
|
|
|
|
|
Why is there no mention of ]? You know, simple ] of matter, ] becomes ], gas becomes ]/] matter and vice versa? The writers of this article have completely avoided talk of thermodynamics, regardless if the objects being mentioned are literally made of plasma, gas, liquids and solids. That is like talking of storms but not mentioning rain or winds. ] (]) 12:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC) |
Why is there no mention of exoplanets? Surely the 1,849 exoplanets that have been found have some sort of significance inside of a model which claims to explain their existence? Or is it that the 1,849 exoplanets found defy the nebular hypothesis so there can be no mention of them made here? Elephant in the room Wavyinfinity (talk) 21:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Why is there no mention of chemistry? Are not asteroids comprised of rocks/minerals? The gravitational potential energy of a large asteroid does not contain the activation energy to synthesize rocks (non-spontaneous chemical reactions) in outer space. Why is this also completely ignored? Or am I wrong to consider science as a multidisciplinary subject? Wavyinfinity (talk) 12:09, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=small}
