Planetary formation not requiring acretion

[Aristarchus in Exile]

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap991129.html

 

The photo of this nasa apod page shows what I believe is a ball of water being formed and shot into space by the pulse from the red star. We know these balls of water exist in space, some as moons of Jupiter and Saturn. Several years ago in a science magazine I saw an electron scanning microscope photograph of rock layers being formed in water, the layers formed around a specific molecule which had been dropped into the water. I wish I could remember which magazine, which molecule, etc., but I can't, but the photo, except for scale, exactly resembled layers of shale or sedimentary rock I have seen on shores of the Great Lakes. I propose that earth formed from such a ball of water in the way pictured in the magazine, the layers growing until they break the surface of the waters, continuing to grow, forming Pangea (I think that was the name of the first continent) then that super-continent breaking apart and forming the present continents.

[Moontanman]

We know these balls of water exist in space, some as moons of Jupiter and Saturn.

 

The moons of Jupiter and Saturn are balls of water? Can you give us some support of this assertion, I have never heard the moons of any planet being described as balls of water....

[Realitycheck]

I posted a recent news article about a stage in the early life cycle of many stars in which the stars emit large prominences of water.

Edited October 13, 2011 by Realitycheck

[Moontanman]

I posted a recent news article about a stage in the early life cycle of many stars in which the stars emit large prominences of water.

 

Incandescent gas and plasma or balls of liquid water?

[baric]

http://apod.nasa.gov...d/ap991129.html

 

The photo of this nasa apod page shows what I believe is a ball of water being formed and shot into space by the pulse from the red star.

 

I am sorry, but you are incorrect.

 

For starters...

 

1) solid water (ice) cannot exist near a star. Ice requires either cold temperatures or high pressure to form.

 

2) liquid water cannot exist at all in a vacuum or even in a very thin Mars-like atmosphere.

[Realitycheck]

6/22/11 Science Articles, physorg.com article, Baby stars emit water, etc.

[Moontanman]

6/22/11 Science Articles, physorg.com article, Baby stars emit water, etc.

 

 

Ok, but is that water in the form of a gas cloud or a ball of liquid water? The assertion here is that these star emit balls of water and that Jupiter's Moons are an example of those balls of water. I think this is totally false distortion of the concept of stars emitting water.

[Realitycheck]

But that just looks like a bunch of hot gas. Oops. :)grin

 

Ahh, Moontanman, looking back, apparently this "water" was actually 180,000 °F jets of gas streamed out. Is the spectral signature of water really that defined to call a jet water vapor as opposed to hydrogen and oxygen? Does hot hydrogen and oxygen readily form into any other compounds easily? Apparently, I was a bit too excited to read the rest. No need to reply.

Edited October 14, 2011 by Realitycheck

[baric]

But that just looks like a bunch of hot gas. Oops. :)grin

 

Ahh, Moontanman, looking back, apparently this "water" was actually 180,000 °F jets of gas streamed out. Is the spectral signature of water really that defined to call a jet water vapor as opposed to hydrogen and oxygen? Does hot hydrogen and oxygen readily form into any other compounds easily? Apparently, I was a bit too excited to read the rest. No need to reply.

 

The spectral signature of water is distinctly different from that of hydrogen and oxygen. I don't think anyone has a problem gaseous water, given the right conditions, but the OP was strongly implying liquid water -- which would be impossible.

[Aristarchus in Exile]

I am sorry, but you are incorrect.

 

For starters...

 

1) solid water (ice) cannot exist near a star. Ice requires either cold temperatures or high pressure to form.

 

2) liquid water cannot exist at all in a vacuum or even in a very thin Mars-like atmosphere.

 

l. How near is near? Do we know what pressures exist near the red star? The 'waterfall' which remains unexplained in the text accompanying the photo appears to fall into an 'area' which I believe could be high pressure, possibly caused by anti-gravity.

 

2. Liquid water exists as an ocean on Europa, covered by ice, Europa exists in a vacuum. It is not inconceivable that a globe of water formed in space would either instantly or nearly instantly form an ice shell to contain the water. A few of the moons of Saturn, Jupiter and possibly Uranus are said to be similar to Europa. I have seen photos of the ice moons shooting geysers of water, which of course turn instantly to ice and snow.

 

The moons of Jupiter and Saturn are balls of water? Can you give us some support of this assertion, I have never heard the moons of any planet being described as balls of water....

 

I did not say all the moons of Jupiter and Saturn are balls of water. However, some of those moons (I don't know how many) are covered by ice having oceans beneath, and this has been proven through photos of water geysers shooting from the ice. In my proposal the moons begin as balls of water, within which grows the minerals forming the core.

 

6/22/11 Science Articles, physorg.com article, Baby stars emit water, etc.

 

Thanks Reality Check. Your information helps us all to consider what may be possible. I think if anyone only a decade or two in the past had suggested that baby stars emit water they would have been considered lunatic by people relying on consensus.

http://www.astrobio.net/pressrelease/2445/hot-and-steamy-star

The url content suggests that earth's water did not have to come from comets, as seems to be the consensus among most people I talk to.

This url suggests plenty of water in space.

http://www.astrobio.net/pressrelease/142/cold-clouds-and-water-in-space

 

I admit my concept requires plenty of imagination, but Einstein said, "Imagination is more important than knowledge."

[baric]

l. How near is near? Do we know what pressures exist near the red star? The 'waterfall' which remains unexplained in the text accompanying the photo appears to fall into an 'area' which I believe could be high pressure, possibly caused by anti-gravity.

 

The photosphere is too hot, but is already too low of pressure to allow water in a solid form. If you move inside the photosphere to higher pressures, the temperature would break the chemical bonds long before you reached a solid state.

 

2. Liquid water exists as an ocean on Europa, covered by ice, Europa exists in a vacuum. It is not inconceivable that a globe of water formed in space would either instantly or nearly instantly form an ice shell to contain the water. A few of the moons of Saturn, Jupiter and possibly Uranus are said to be similar to Europa. I have seen photos of the ice moons shooting geysers of water, which of course turn instantly to ice and snow.

 

Europa has a core of iron and silicates. It formed through the accretion of these solids and ice. All liquid water on Europa formed later as a result of favorable temperatures and pressure, under a protective covering of ice. In no way, shape or form did Europa or any other known moon form from a globe of liquid water.

 

I did not say all the moons of Jupiter and Saturn are balls of water. However, some of those moons (I don't know how many) are covered by ice having oceans beneath, and this has been proven through photos of water geysers shooting from the ice. In my proposal the moons begin as balls of water, within which grows the minerals forming the core.

 

How do substantial cores containing the elements Iron, Lead, Silicon, Magnesium, Calcium, etc "grow" from a body of solid water?

[Realitycheck]

In most of the moon models I've seen, water is just a layer, never making up the core, but I suppose it's not impossible. I'm pretty sure that a gas giant of hydrogen and oxygen would have a core of water and ice, among other things.

Edited October 14, 2011 by Realitycheck

[Moontanman]

In most of the moon models I've seen, water is just a layer, never making up the core, but I suppose it's not impossible. I'm pretty sure that a gas giant of hydrogen and oxygen would have a core of water and ice, among other things.

 

 

This wiki article suggest that Jupiter and Saturn have cores of rock and metal surrounded by liquid metallic hydrogen then gasses.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_giant

 

 

Neptune does indeed have a layer of ices, hi temperature and high pressure ices.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neptune

 

 

Interior of Europa, more rock than is or water

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europa_(moon)

 

 

 

I did not say all the moons of Jupiter and Saturn are balls of water.

 

your words...

 

We know these balls of water exist in space, some as moons of Jupiter and Saturn.

 

However, some of those moons (I don't know how many) are covered by ice having oceans beneath, and this has been proven through photos of water geysers shooting from the ice. In my proposal the moons begin as balls of water, within which grows the minerals forming the core.

 

I know of no bodies in the solar system that are thought to be balls of water,. this idea is not only wrong you use it so come to conclusions that are impossible, these moons are mostly rock and metal, where does the rock and metal come from and where did the water go to leave behind such a large ball of rock and liquid metal with just a covering layer of water and or ice?

 

I admit my concept requires plenty of imagination, but Einstein said, "Imagination is more important than knowledge."

 

Your idea requires evidence, imagination without evidence results in fantasy....

[Aristarchus in Exile]

The photosphere is too hot, but is already too low of pressure to allow water in a solid form. If you move inside the photosphere to higher pressures, the temperature would break the chemical bonds long before you reached a solid state.

 

 

 

Europa has a core of iron and silicates. It formed through the accretion of these solids and ice. All liquid water on Europa formed later as a result of favorable temperatures and pressure, under a protective covering of ice. In no way, shape or form did Europa or any other known moon form from a globe of liquid water.

 

 

 

How do substantial cores containing the elements Iron, Lead, Silicon, Magnesium, Calcium, etc "grow" from a body of solid water?

 

Baric, my original post stated that the minerals grow layer by layer within the globe of water, so that acretion is not necessary. I mentioned that I could not remember the name of the scientific publication I read which stated that minerals grow from a certain molecule in water, but a simple understanding how atoms form molecules leads to understanding of how minerals can be formed in water, or anywhere. Certainly acretion can form planets, but not in the model I propose and am certain of.

[Moontanman]

Baric, my original post stated that the minerals grow layer by layer within the globe of water, so that acretion is not necessary. I mentioned that I could not remember the name of the scientific publication I read which stated that minerals grow from a certain molecule in water, but a simple understanding how atoms form molecules leads to understanding of how minerals can be formed in water, or anywhere. Certainly acretion can form planets, but not in the model I propose and am certain of.

 

 

Where do the minerals come from? How could the mass of the Earth have grown out of a ball of water or any other body of water large enough to be round under it's own gravity? I think you are thinking of manganese nodules growing on the bottom of the ocean and drawing a false parallel between that and planet growth...

[Moontanman]

Baric, my original post stated that the minerals grow layer by layer within the globe of water, so that acretion is not necessary. I mentioned that I could not remember the name of the scientific publication I read which stated that minerals grow from a certain molecule in water, but a simple understanding how atoms form molecules leads to understanding of how minerals can be formed in water, or anywhere. Certainly acretion can form planets, but not in the model I propose and am certain of.

 

 

Where do the minerals come from? How could the mass of the Earth have grown out of a ball of water or any other body of water large enough to be round under it's own gravity? I think you are thinking of manganese nodules growing on the bottom of the ocean and drawing a false parallel between that and planet growth...

[Aristarchus in Exile]

This wiki article suggest that Jupiter and Saturn have cores of rock and metal surrounded by liquid metallic hydrogen then gasses.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_giant

 

 

Neptune does indeed have a layer of ices, hi temperature and high pressure ices.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neptune

 

 

Interior of Europa, more rock than is or water

 

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Europa_(moon)

 

 

 

 

your words...

 

 

 

 

 

I know of no bodies in the solar system that are thought to be balls of water,. this idea is not only wrong you use it so come to conclusions that are impossible, these moons are mostly rock and metal, where does the rock and metal come from and where did the water go to leave behind such a large ball of rock and liquid metal with just a covering layer of water and or ice?

 

 

 

Your idea requires evidence, imagination without evidence results in fantasy....

 

If imagination was good enough for Einstein it's good enough for me. Where does the water go? It doesn't go anywhere .. the sphere expands as the rock inside the sphere expands. Where does the rock come from? It grows inside the sphere of water by molecular action. Where does the molecule come from? It either forms spontaneously from atoms or it drifts in on a meteor perhaps? What changes rock to different types of rock? Geologic action. I think all areas of science would benefit if they weren't so specialized, astrophysicists should study geology for instance, as they are dealing with rocks in space.

 

One thing about forms .. many readers do not read posts carefully, and add words from their own minds to their idea of what the posts are saying, for instance, I wrote "moons of Saturn and Jupiter" and somehow that became 'all moons of Jupiter and Saturn' and even the planets themselves. Oh well .. such is life.

 

I don't know what happened to the post I just posted and tried to edit, seems to have disappeared, but you know, I don't know if internet forums are worth participating in, too many readers add words from their own minds to what they are reading. Example, my "moons of Jupiter and Saturn" becomes 'all moons of Jupiter and Saturn', and also the phrase is translated as meaning the planets themselves. Another thing, instead if just accepting someone's idea as an idea or opinion, too many participants pontificate instead of building on the idea or presenting evidence to refute it. A lot of time gets wasted.

[baric]

If imagination was good enough for Einstein it's good enough for me. Where does the water go? It doesn't go anywhere .. the sphere expands as the rock inside the sphere expands.

 

Keep in mind that any sphere of water that is large enough to be gravitationally round will be an almost completely solid hot ice under a thin layer of liquid water, under a thin layer of cold ice.

 

Where does the rock come from? It grows inside the sphere of water by molecular action.

 

"Molecular action" sounds very vague. Can you describe the chemical reactions you are talking about?

 

Where does the molecule come from? ]t either forms spontaneously from atoms or it drifts in on a meteor perhaps?

 

Perhaps? So you choices are nuclear synthesis (impossible for any planet-sized body) or a meteor.

 

What changes rock to different types of rock? Geologic action.

 

"Geologic action" also sounds very vague. Can you describe the chemical reactions that you are talking about?

 

I think all areas of science would benefit if they weren't so specialized, astrophysicists should study geology for instance, as they are dealing with rocks in space.

 

This field of science already exists. It is called planetary science.

[Aristarchus in Exile]

Baric .. your quote, "Keep in mind that any sphere of water that is large enough to be gravitationally round will be an almost completely solid hot ice under a thin layer of liquid water, under a thin layer of cold ice."

 

You ask for proof of others' statements and complex scientific explanations but don't offer either as proof of your own statements. Why is this?

[Ophiolite]

You ask for proof of others' statements and complex scientific explanations but don't offer either as proof of your own statements. Why is this?

Baric's statements are based upon established science that has undergone the rigours of peer review and validation by many independent tests and observations. Therefore baric does not require to offer proof of such statements. Since you know that you are offering a non-standard explanation you must be familiar with the current consensus view. Therefore there is no need ofr baric or anyone else to direct you to current conventional wisdom.

 

On the other hand you are proposing a radical departure from conventional wisdom. That certainly requires more justification than a mere statement from yourself. You have done some arm waving about "minerals growing from a certain molecule in water". Quite rightly we are asking for some details that would be consistent with your hypothesis. I know of how several minerals can grow from certain molecules in water, but none of these would provide the mechanism you are looking for. so, if you cannot provide a plausible explanation then that avenue is closed to you.

[Aristarchus in Exile]

Baric's statements are based upon established science that has undergone the rigours of peer review and validation by many independent tests and observations. Therefore baric does not require to offer proof of such statements. Since you know that you are offering a non-standard explanation you must be familiar with the current consensus view. Therefore there is no need ofr baric or anyone else to direct you to current conventional wisdom.

 

On the other hand you are proposing a radical departure from conventional wisdom. That certainly requires more justification than a mere statement from yourself. You have done some arm waving about "minerals growing from a certain molecule in water". Quite rightly we are asking for some details that would be consistent with your hypothesis. I know of how several minerals can grow from certain molecules in water, but none of these would provide the mechanism you are looking for. so, if you cannot provide a plausible explanation then that avenue is closed to you.

 

I can't accept your viewpoint, Ophiolite, regardless of your reasoning, as it simply allows one person, Baric in this case, to make broad general statements without proof, while demanding it of others, thereby leaving one person in the Driver's Seat with the keys, the gas pedal, the brakes, etc. Sorry, this is not acceptable to me and I doubt it would be acceptable in any legitimate debate because it makes politicians of debaters. In this case, I make a simple statement of faith, admitting I have no proof. I offer it only for consideration, not as a garette around my neck.

[baric]

Baric .. your quote, "Keep in mind that any sphere of water that is large enough to be gravitationally round will be an almost completely solid hot ice under a thin layer of liquid water, under a thin layer of cold ice."

 

You ask for proof of others' statements and complex scientific explanations but don't offer either as proof of your own statements. Why is this?

 

http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/phase.html

 

I can't accept your viewpoint, Ophiolite, regardless of your reasoning, as it simply allows one person, Baric in this case, to make broad general statements without proof, while demanding it of others, thereby leaving one person in the Driver's Seat with the keys, the gas pedal, the brakes, etc. Sorry, this is not acceptable to me and I doubt it would be acceptable in any legitimate debate because it makes politicians of debaters. In this case, I make a simple statement of faith, admitting I have no proof. I offer it only for consideration, not as a garette around my neck.

 

My apologies if you were not familiar with the phase diagram for water.

 

I mistakenly assumed that you would be since you are postulating theories about planetary-sized bodies of water.

 

We know a LOT about water and how it behaves.

 

I will try to elaborate on the phase diagram for water.

 

An easy way to read that is to imagine a line moving from the top right down towards the bottom left.

 

At the top right you have the highest pressure and temperature, which would represent conditions closer to the core of a planet.

 

At the bottom left you have the lowest pressure and temperature, which would represent the conditions at the surface.

 

The temperature at which your line intersects the bottom base is the effective temperature of the planet, which is calculated from the luminosity and distance of the planet's star.

 

You can see that if the effective temperature is greater than 200 kelvins, the surface water will be gaseous and will eventually be disassociated by ultraviolet radiation until there is only ozone left around the surface ice.

 

Notice that the peak pressure for the liquid phase gets asymptotic around 100 gigapascals (or about one million Earth atmospheres). The pressure at the center of the Earth is over 300 gigapascals, meaning that the core of an Earth-size body of water will be solid ice (Ice X, specifically, which I loosely referred to as "hot ice").

 

Assuming that the diagonal line that you draw from the top right to the bottom left intersects the liquid phase, then hopefully you can see which I described your hypothetical body as a "solid core of hot ice, covered by a thin layer of liquid water, covered by a thin layer of cold ice"

Edited October 17, 2011 by baric

[Ophiolite]

I can't accept your viewpoint, Ophiolite, regardless of your reasoning, as it simply allows one person, Baric in this case, to make broad general statements without proof, while demanding it of others, thereby leaving one person in the Driver's Seat with the keys, the gas pedal, the brakes, etc. Sorry, this is not acceptable to me and I doubt it would be acceptable in any legitimate debate because it makes politicians of debaters. In this case, I make a simple statement of faith, admitting I have no proof. I offer it only for consideration, not as a garette around my neck.

I do not see how something that is generally known by anyone who has taken a serious interest in such matters requires 'proof'. This is established science. The data are just about as solid as anything can possibly get. Baric has very kindly provided you with those data and a simple explanation. In my view he need not have done so, but it was certainly thoughtful and productive for him to have done so.

 

You suggest a comparison with politicians debating. What you are asking for is equivalent to an MP in the House of Commons complaining that he was unaware of the role of the Speaker of the House. If he is an MP it is his duty to be familiar with how the House operates. If you are proposing an alternate view of planetary formation it really is incumbent on you that you be familiar with current theory and associated science. Apparently you are not. There is nothing wrong with that until you start complaining about it. The responsibility to be informed in those matters rests with you, not with others.

 

You say you have offered this alternative as a consideration. That's all well and good. So , why won't you accept that it fails as a consideration?

[Aristarchus in Exile]

Thanks to Baric and Ophiliolite for your input, particularly Baric who provides instruction. However, for Ophiolite to say my proposal "fails as a consideration" is the same attitude which exiled Aristarchus to exile, and also which caused Linus Pauling to call Daniel Shecthtman a "quasi scientist" and to crusade against him and his quasi crystals.

http://en.wikipedia....archus_of_Samos

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Shechtman

Aristarchus of Samos was more than 1,800 years 'ahead of his time,' proposing that the sun, and not the earth, was the centre of the solar system, his proposal getting him exiled. The same Consensus Enshrined ruled then as rules now .. a consensus which blinds itself to possibilty and degrades the visionary, as proven by the example of Daniel Shecthtman and his quasicrystals being crusaded against by Linus Pauling. The consensus is why that I can seriously consider consensus stances but cannot take them seriously, and also why I consider my own ideas which are based far more on Einsteinian imagination than 'facts' (which are only facts until proven otherwise) at least as valuable as those which the consensus claims to have proven. Had Aristarchus been taken seriously the human race would probably have visited other galaxies by now, as his open mindedness would have opened the minds of all who came after him, while his punishment certainly served as an inhibitor to those who did have vision. While I cannot possibly offer proof of my ideas, I can offer them to others for their consideration, knowing as I do so that others cannot offer proof that my ideas are wrong because "we know in part."

Edited October 18, 2011 by Aristarchus in Exile

[imatfaal]

Bingo!