Embryonic Dust Cloud Theory

An Evaluation of Argument Con's argument has largely been a critique of insignificant* elements within the nebular hypothesis, discrepancies which alone do not disprove the theory at all. The exception to this rule was the contention on the nature of gravitation, something the hypothesis depends. Allowing the four rounds the points may be divided into four major fields of argument: i) collisions, bricks and gravitation, ii) planetary arrangement, iii) retrograde motion, iv) heterodyning, silica and the iron catastrophe.*By insignificant I mean that even if they were sound criticisms they target the post-event material (see retrograde orbits and heterodyning), as opposed to reasons why planets can never form from nebula.Below is a summary of the subjects discussed.>>> 1. Legal Gravity <<<Brick vs Brick Yes, a Brick would virtually never fuse with another brick here on earth but such a reduction is misleading when gravitational laws are applied in a universal context. In space this is simply not the case, gravitation in a system without permutations means that they will always attract. The greatest perturbation here on earth is the earth's gravity. In space this attraction is referred to gravitation accretion, as I said in round 3. Accretion is the same process that makes areas of humidity group to form clouds (although water polarity plays a part). Matter clumps together when the gravitation interference is negligible.Applied Classical Mechanics(m1*v1 + m2*v2 = m1*v1' + m2 *v2') === simplified to === P1 + P2 = P1' + P2'Well done, momentum is translated between colliding objects. Your conclusion that this means collisions are purely repulsive or destructive is false and doesn't follow from this equation. I can't mathematically express a collision as it is because to do so requires the tensile strength of both objects, the impact angle of collision, the momentum of collision and to factor in compression. It's a hell of a task. I will say though that if your conclusions were taken to be true it is impossible for any matter in the world to collide and fuse, literally, always, universally, impossible. This argument was maintained throughout by Con.>>> 2. Planetary Arrangement <<<In round 2 Con made a point that planets should be sorted by mass and density, he cited hydrological sorting as evidence for this phenomenon. This was untrue, planets are arranged by their mass and escape velocity; when gravity exerted and the escape force are at equilibrium the planet says at a constant radius from the sun (the progressive drift away is explained by the change in gravity exerted). No one should expects the planets to be sorted by mass.Introduced as the second argument of round 1. Con stopped using this argument after round 3 and ignored it as if it was never said from then on.>>> 3. Retrograde Motion <<<Retrograde motion, even if it occurred in every planetary system, does not disprove the nebular hypothesis. It would strongly imply that the standard fluid dynamic model is false when applied to protostars for a currently unknown reason.To understand why Con makes this such a big deal of this question must be asked: Why does retrograde motion (planets spinning backward) mean that planets did not form from nebula? This has to do with fluid dynamics and the original eddy around the principle star. Most all the planets in the system should spin in the original direction of the eddy did. Of course like described for Venus and Uranus, later collisions, gravitational chaos regions and some other things (Refer to Round 3) may wack some planets of their natural course but reverse orbits shouldn't be the norm and they are not. Most planets orbit they way fluid dynamics predicts, some do not, we have an explanation for almost all we find however.WASP-8 has a single known planet, WASP-8b. [http://exoplanet.eu...]Introduced as the final argument in round 1 and maintained throughout.>>> 4. Heterodyning <<<"We should see large volumes of core material mixed into the mantle and a small or entirely absent liquid core."This is point made in Round 4 reiterated in Round 5. What I have against this is that because the core and mantle are of the same substance mixing cannot be detected since the concentrations of elements are in equilibrium. Furthermore there is no explicit boundary between the two merely a range were matter has a different viscosity. Sure, at the moment of collision there would have been a massive shock and active heterodyning of the internal layers but since there have been no collisions that have literally shocked us to the core in over 4 billion years there would be no evidence of this thanks to the convection of matter. After skimming though 4 years worth of abstracts from Asphaug, not once did he claim anything of the sort.On half truths - you called the core a fluid when it has elements of both, in that spirit you would be a guilty as I. The existence of an inner core that is "thought" to be solid is just as true as the idea that the outer core is "thought" to be a fluid and is "thought" to be the cause of earth's amplified gravity.The Silicate EvidenceVirtually no silica from 3 billion years ago exists. Con never responded to this in his conclusion. Why false?When I previously said Con's argument was "based on an ignorance of science", I meant this not maliciously but as an objective truth. Here are the prime cases of were Con has made factual errors:The process of gravitational accretion; that bricks in space collide like bricks on earth. [a]All collisions are purely repulsive or subducting. [b]The shaped planets to be sorted by density and mass. [c]A planetary system with at least two planets has a majority of its planets in retrograde orbit exists. [d]The evidence of planetary collision would be mixed mantle and core. [e]The mantle can indicate heterodyning between multiple silica sources. [f]Evidence for [a-f] - refer to this: http://www.debate.org... These 'truths' are essential, they are the only way Con can make a case against the nebular hypothesis, if they are false there is no case. Why believe? I don't ask you believe this because it is simply the only idea out there but because it is the best idea out there. We have the pieces, we have the events and we have the explanations as to why these events occur. By simply looking we find that in some systems we have dust clouds, in others we dust clusters of uneven density, looking on we have protostars sounded by a dust haze, beyond that we have stars surrounded by colliding asteroids, further on, beyond that we have stars in a storms of unstable planetoids. Finally, we have a complete planetary system like our own. Observing these is enough for one to make an educated guess but if that doesn't convince you we appeal to the science of why it happens. This is gravitation, accretion, attraction, that makes it happen: "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." There are some shady ends, as always, the only one is expressed in this debate are the very rare retrograde orbits. But this is illustrative of science itself, there's always more to explain. END I thank Con for taking the time to debate this topic, you the reader for taking the time to read this much prose and for your general interest in cosmology.