Embryonic Dust Cloud Theory

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?Why Plausible?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. [1]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. GravitationAll 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 CoreInteresting. 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 MantleOkay, 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. [2] Despite this no one expects what you do with silicon heterodyning. Rare CollisionsWell, 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. [3] Evidence for the bombardment period are:-- The radiometric ages of impact melt rocks that were collected during the Apollo/Luna missions. [4]-- Luna meteorites [5] -- Craters dated to ~3.9 Ga across the telluric planets. SuperWASP SystemsInteresting 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. Further CommentsMy 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-- Orbits-- 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.[1] -- www.wbabin.net/physics/abruzzo7.pdf -- A History of the Pro-Argument.[2] -- http://adsabs.harvard.edu... -- Terrestrial accretion rates and the origin of the Moon [3] -- http://docmadhattan.fieldofscience.com... -- On the 'Nice Model'[4] -- www.planetary.brown.edu/pdfs/3276.pdf -- [5] -- http://www.sciencemag.org... -- Age of Luna Meteorites