Embryonic Dust Cloud Theory

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." [1]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.Planetary ArrangementI 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. Retrograde motionMost 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 [2] 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. [3]Lesser Rebuttals"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...] [4] 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. ConclusionCon 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. [1] -- http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] -- http://www.imcce.fr... [3] -- http://news.nationalgeographic.com... [4] -- http://spacetelescope.org...