Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
::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)
::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)
*After the planets scatter one another, the planets orbits can become circular by scattering asteroids and comets.
*The first 1cm sized clumps would have to stick together from low velocity impacts as there were no massive bodies to scatter them into eccentric orbits.
*We know the Suns birth nebula contained micron-sized diamonds. Partially differentiated nascent planets would contain rocks and minerals.
*The gas giants formed before the proto-sun matured.
This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Misplaced Pages.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Misplaced Pages.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy
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 roomWavyinfinity (talk) 21:39, 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 asteroid belt(s) and Kuiper belt(s) are (might be). We simply need to know more. We also need to better understand planetary migration as in the case of the nice model. -- Kheider (talk) 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. Wavyinfinity (talk) 12:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
After the planets scatter one another, the planets orbits can become circular by scattering asteroids and comets.
The first 1cm sized clumps would have to stick together from low velocity impacts as there were no massive bodies to scatter them into eccentric orbits.
We know the Suns birth nebula contained micron-sized diamonds. Partially differentiated nascent planets would contain rocks and minerals.
The gas giants formed before the proto-sun matured.
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)
Thermodynamics
Why is there no mention of thermodynamics? You know, simple phase transitions of matter, plasma (physics) becomes gas, gas becomes solid/liquid 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. Wavyinfinity (talk) 12:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=small}
