Embryonic Dust Cloud Theory

Rebuttal 1: "Your argument is like denying the existence gravity on the basis that garden peas don't orbit melons." Comical, but misleading. I made no assumptions of the billiard balls orbiting each other. My demonstration served to explain the collision of rocks. The two are entirely separate forces. Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation explains orbits ( F=G[ m_1m_2/r^2]). The equations used to explain collision (absent any other outside forces except momentum) is m1• v1 + m2 • v2 = m1 • v1' + m2 • v2' This math equation dictates, that when the two rocks collide (let's call them R1 and R2), the momentum of R1 is lost and transferred to R2. The opposite is also true. R2 loses its momentum and transfers it to R1. It is an exchange of force. This would result in one of two outcomes: 1.> If the colliding particles are equal in size and momentum, they would repel equally. 2.> If one is larger and faster than the other, the smaller, slower object would be "run over" and flung aside. The rocks would not stick together. Claiming otherwise is to ignore the transfer of momentum. Rebuttal 2: "Cue balls do not have areas of sufficient charge to form electrostatic attractions with one another." Correct. Dust particles are small enough to attract via electrostatic charge. Rocks are not. Therefore, the clumping of dust has a size limit. (Mass vs. electrostatic forces). In short, once you obtain a dust clump large enough , it's collision with another dust clump results in a destruction, not a construction. 　 Rebuttal 3: "In this since you have made the assumption that the force of gravity applied by the sun on every planet is constant which is not true, objects far from the centre of gravity like Pluto ." I will concede partially here. Pluto is actually the least dense planet in our solar system and it's not actually a planet. I would explain it' existence as a "stray" that could have entered the solar system at any point in history. The remainder of the solar system has had 4.5 billion years to be sorted by density. At the very least, the inner three planets should have a different arrangement. 　 Rebuttal 4: "Conservation of Angular momentum." Uranus has an axial tilt of 98 degrees. Venus spins in retrograde motion. Triton orbits Neptune in retrograde orbit. Jupiter has 48 of it's 63 moons orbiting in retrograde orbit. Saturn has 29 of 61 satellites in retrograde orbit. What's the explanation for all of these? The Collision crutch theory? Collisions are extremely rare. Just consider the space to mass ratio. Collisions are almost impossible, which is why we see so little evidence of orbit altering, cataclysmic, planet sized collisions. In fact, we do not have evidence for one such collision. In 2010, half a dozen planets have where discovered by the WASP observatory to be moving in backwards orbit. The WASP discovery can only be explained one way: These planets did not form in a Nebular proto-planetary disk. Interplanetary Collisions could not have altered the rotation of the planets. These six solar systems only have one planet each. 　 Rebuttal 5: The greatest evidence for the nebula origins of planetary systems is the present existence of its phases. Not true. No person has ever seen or monitored varying phases of an embryonic dust cloud process. We either find a spinning disk of dust or a fully formed solar system. There has never been a missing link discovery. Within the last year, the Keppler space telescope found no less than 60+ new planets throughout a slew of new planetary systems. Each of them was found fully formed. Also, your sources fail to support this claim. One source claims to have captured IR images of various stars with dust clouds spinning in their orbit. The source is quoted as stating:"The connection between spectral type and grain size is interpreted in terms of the variation in the silicate emission radius as a function of stellar luminosity, but could also be indicative of other spectral-type-dependent factors (e.g., X-rays, UV radiation, and stellar/disk winds)." Silicate emission radius refers to rock radius (it must, otherwise this source makes no sense). They measured the light of the star and used it as a baseline comparator against areas of less light (supposed planets). This is not proof of planets forming. This is evidence that dust clouds are not uniform in density. It's also indicative of "other spectral-type-dependent factors (e.g., X-rays, UV radiation, and stellar/disk winds)."As stated earlier: Jack Lissenauer, a researcher at the NASA Ames research center, is quoted as saying that he finds ”the hypothesis to be quite weak”. He continues to explain that “the idea of forming planetary cores in this manner is far from demonstrated.” My opponent has misrepresented the evidence, confusing orbits with collisions.My opponent admittedly concedes that the forces needed to coagulate dust are separate from the forces that supposedly form planets.My opponent has rightfully explained that gravity varies by distance, yet has failed to provide a mechanism to excuse the absence of sorting for the inner most planets. We could excuse Pluto but what about Earth, Venus and Mercury?My opponent has attempted to excuse the existence of retrograde activity through collision, or that the planets didn't form in the solar system at all (and like an asteroid, where sucked in later). One is an excuse, the other argues against his claim that planets are formed from an embryonic dust cloud.How do you suppose these rouge "late arrival" planets are introduced into our solar system? Did they form in another system through the nebular hypothesis, pack their bags and leave orbit, just to travel billions of light years to settle in our system? This debate is getting quite interesting. I'd like to thank my opponent for taking this seriously and offering real competition. http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_law_of_universal_gravitation http://www.universetoday.com... http://news.nationalgeographic.com...# http://curious.astro.cornell.edu... http://www.physicsclassroom.com... http://kepler.nasa.gov... http://iopscience.iop.org... (opponents source)