Embryonic Dust Cloud Theory

Opening Arguments: The origin of the Nebular Hypothesis can be dated back tothe delusional mind of Emmanuel Swedenborg, an 18th century theologianand inventor. Since its conception, the theory had been reshaped into the SolarNebular Disk Model, also called SNDM. The SNDM is a widely accepted mechanismand remains largely undisputed, despite its commonly admitted lack of evidence.This is most likely the case because no other mechanism exists to explain theformation of a solar system. Jack Lissenauer, a researcher at the NASA Ames research center,is quoted as saying that he finds ”the hypothesis to be quiteweak”. He continues to explain that “the idea of forming planetary cores inthis manner is far from demonstrated.” Counter – Evidence: The theory claimsthat dust particles in the Nebular Disk attract through gravitational pull.These particles begin colliding, coagulating and form larger particles by thesum of the original constructs. Eventually, these dust clumps become rocks,which collide with other rocks to form even bigger rocks. This processcontinues in an avalanche effect until a planet is formed. This process is ridiculous to conceive. Imagine yourselfplaying a game of billiard. Would you not expect the cue ball to kinetically ejectits target into the corner pocket? How would you feel about the laws of motion,if the cue ball and the eight ball began clinging together as though they weremade of Velcro? When particles collide, they repel. This is an equal andopposite reaction to collision. In most cases, the colliding particles willalso break apart into smaller chunks. This of course depends on density anddirect force. I would conclude, planetary formation based on the collision ofmatter undermines some very basic, physical laws. The theory requiresa large amount of time, which would allow for the shaped planets to be sortedby density and mass. Consider hydrological sorting. If you dump a handful ofdirt into a glass of water, you will notice that the water begins to sort the sedimentsinto layers, based on density. The same process would occur on a much largerscale in the solar system. After several billion years, we should expect the inner mostplanets to be the densest and the outer most planets to be gaseous and light. Unfortunately for this theory, Earth is the densest planetin our solar system. It far exceeds density and mass compared to Mercury andVenus, yet it’s not the inner-most planet. Additionally, Pluto, our outermostplanetoid, is solid. It should also be noted that Jupiter is orbited by no lessthan 63 solid moons, most of which are composed of ice and silicate rock. The amount of time allotted for the planet birthing would bemore than enough for the stellar bodies to sort itself by density. The factthat it has not, hints a much younger solar system than proposed by thistheory. It should also be noted that this theory is in conflict with the conservation law of angular momentum. If the star is rotating clockwise, then the cloud will also spinclockwise. Henceforth, the planets formed within will spin clockwise as well,both in orbit and on their axis. So far, we have found no less than six planets in retrograde oorbit. Additionally, planets in our own solar system have opposing rotational axismovements. While this mechanism doesn’t outright disprove an embryonic process,it does make it more and more improbable, every time we find a retrogradeplanet. The forces needed to create a retrograde event should be very, veryrare. References: http://www.enchantedlearning.com... http://www.sciencenews.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...