Embryonic Dust Cloud Theory

Since we really don’t have the space to waste on arguing about water balloons and brick walls, I will dependon 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.[5] (The smaller object slingshots around the larger body). In a frictionless environment, this would be an exhaustive process before the two planetoidsfinally unite into a central body. The two masses would endure an elastic orbitfor an unknown amount of time. It’s simply not observable outside of N-Bodysimulations (which are highly inaccurate)[6]. However, once the two planetsdraw 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-uniformheterodyned planetoid [4]. A liquid core would be impossible for thefinished product, since the core material of both planets would have cooledafter the heterodyning process. If this is how the Earth formed, then the evidence should be easily obtainable.(We should see large volumes of core material mixed into the mantle and a small or entirely absent liquid core.) Therefore, we already know that Earth did not come into creation through collision because our core is still fluidic and centralized and our mantle doesnot indicate heterodyning between multiple silica sources. In fact, the merefact that we still have a liquid core opposes a large scale collision modelentirely. (Source listed below rebuttal two) 2.>Inner temperature of the protoplanetary disk: This is estimated to vary between 500-1500KFahrenheit (227.7K -833.3k Celsius) Outer disk 50-150k Celsius Fahrenheit(27.76k – 83.3k Celsius) The melting point of Iron (1.5k Celsius) Based on the “Iron Catastrophe[2]” in collaborationwith the expected temperature of the protoplanetary disk[3], we must expect thesilicate planets to be super-heated, excessively magnetized and subject to variantfluid dynamics during the collision process. (This is quite the variable, sincewe must know the composition and temperature of the planetoids to estimate viscosityduring melting point.) According a statement by the American Geophysical Union, the collision of superheated Material would upset the natural sedimentation cycle of the planet, mixing the core with the mantle. As quoted by the source[4]: “Atmophiles and volatiles come along for the ride, and can find themselves indisequilibrium mixtures not anticipated by one-dimensional models ofplanetary evolution, or by planet growth models in which planets stick,merge, and mix perfectly in the aftermath of a collision.” 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: Fully formed solar systems Star systems void of planets Star systems filled with gas, dust or both Star systems filled with fully formed planets, enveloped by gasor dust. 4.>The opponent claimed: Lastly, there has never been aplanetary system where every planet has been found in retrograde orbit. Thatwould admittedly cast some doubt on the physics involved with how dust cloudscollapse but would not be enough to disprove hypothesis in its entirety. [1] 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. The comparing of my borrowed collision theory to a water balloon smashing against a brick wall, is a real indicator that my opponent would rather resort to clever (but ultimately incorrect) imagery, than resorting to reason and source. The opponent admitted that the nebular hypothesis would be damned if we found planetary systems, where every planet was in retrograde. I provided six. He ignored them, so I provided them again. Six star systems, each with only one planet. Each a retrograde system. If I had the audacity of my opponent, I would hammer the nail into his coffin now and declare my own success. However, I retain respect for his ability to understand and debate the subject objectively. We not debating absolutes. The nebular hypothesis is a theory for a reason. The voter should filter the evidence for accuracy and compare it to the argument. We need not resort to political statements, like declaring a premature victory. It's tasteless. My opponent attempted to sway favor by claiming that I don't have another method for the creation of the solar system. I do, however, that's not the point. We are here to discredit the nebular hypothesis, not to accredit another mechanism. I have no intention of drawing in my belief system, so that he could weaponize my faith against me. For that reason, I specifically insisted that we only use credible, unbiased sources. I left my faith absent this debate. I really don't appreciate the passive-aggressive attempt to corner me on unrelated character attacks. Stay focused on the subject material please. My opponent requested that I amend my use of references. I did ask requested. It should be much easier now to connect the source to the argument. In return, perhaps my opponent would return to a format of mutual respect and let the voters declare the winner. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]http://cde.nwc.edu... [3]http://www.annualreviews.org... [4]http://adsabs.harvard.edu... [5] http://www.bogan.ca... [6] http://iopscience.iop.org...