Giant planets around young star raise questions about how planets form

October 15, 2018, University of Cambridge
Credit: University of Cambridge

Researchers have identified a young star with four Jupiter and Saturn-sized planets in orbit around it, the first time that so many massive planets have been detected in such a young system. The system has also set a new record for the most extreme range of orbits yet observed: the outermost planet is more than a thousand times further from the star than the innermost one, which raises interesting questions about how such a system might have formed.

The star is just two million years old – a 'toddler' in astronomical terms – and is surrounded by a huge disc of dust and ice. This disc, known as a , is where the planets, moons, asteroids and other astronomical objects in stellar systems form.

The star was already known to be remarkable because it contains the first so-called hot Jupiter—a massive planet orbiting very close to its parent star – to have been discovered around such a young star. Although hot Jupiters were the first type of exoplanet to be discovered, their existence has long puzzled astronomers because they are often thought to be too close to their parent stars to have formed in situ.

Now, a team of researchers led by the University of Cambridge have used the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) to search for planetary 'siblings' to this infant hot Jupiter. Their image revealed three distinct gaps in the disc, which, according to their theoretical modelling, were most likely caused by three additional also orbiting the young star. Their results are reported in the Astrophysical Journal Letters.

The star, CI Tau, is located about 500 light years away in a highly-productive stellar 'nursery' region of the galaxy. Its four planets differ greatly in their orbits: the closest (the hot Jupiter) is within the equivalent of the orbit of Mercury, while the farthest orbits at a distance more than three times greater than that of Neptune. The two outer planets are about the mass of Saturn, while the two inner planets are respectively around one and 10 times the mass of Jupiter.

The discovery raises many questions for astronomers. Around 1% of stars host hot Jupiters, but most of the known hot Jupiters are hundreds of times older than CI Tau. "It is currently impossible to say whether the extreme planetary architecture seen in CI Tau is common in hot Jupiter systems because the way that these sibling planets were detected—through their effect on the protoplanetary disc – would not work in older systems which no longer have a protoplanetary disc," said Professor Cathie Clarke from Cambridge's Institute of Astronomy, the study's first author.

According to the researchers, it is also unclear whether the sibling planets played a role in driving the innermost planet into its ultra-close , and whether this is a mechanism that works in making hot Jupiters in general. And a further mystery is how the outer two planets formed at all.

"Planet formation models tend to focus on being able to make the types of planets that have been observed already, so new discoveries don't necessarily fit the models," said Clarke. "Saturn mass planets are supposed to form by first accumulating a solid core and then pulling in a layer of gas on top, but these processes are supposed to be very slow at large distances from the star. Most models will struggle to make planets of this mass at this distance."

The task ahead will be to study this puzzling system at multiple wavelengths to get more clues about the properties of the disc and its planets. In the meantime, ALMA – the first telescope with the capability of imaging in the making – will likely throw out further surprises in other systems, re-shaping our picture of how planetary systems form.

Explore further: Planet formation starts before star reaches maturity

More information: C. J. Clarke et al. High-resolution Millimeter Imaging of the CI Tau Protoplanetary Disk: A Massive Ensemble of Protoplanets from 0.1 to 100 au, The Astrophysical Journal (2018). DOI: 10.3847/2041-8213/aae36b

Related Stories

Planet formation starts before star reaches maturity

June 26, 2018

A European team of astronomers has discovered that dust particles around a star already coagulate before the star is fully grown. Dust particle growth is the first step in the formation of planets. The researchers from the ...

Rings and gaps in a developing planetary system

April 2, 2018

The discovery of an exoplanet has most often resulted from the monitoring of a star's flicker (the transiting method) or its wobble (the radial velocity method). Discovery by direct imaging is rare because it is so difficult ...

Some giant planets in other systems most likely to be alone

May 7, 2012

In the search for Earth-like planets, it is helpful to look for clues and patterns that can help scientist narrow down the types of systems where potentially habitable planets are likely to be discovered. New research from ...

What are hot Jupiters?

February 13, 2014

When astronomers first discovered other planets, they were completely unlike anything we've ever found in the Solar System. These first planets were known as "hot Jupiters", because they're giant planets – even more massive ...

Recommended for you

Astronomers find possible elusive star behind supernova

November 15, 2018

Astronomers may have finally uncovered the long-sought progenitor to a specific type of exploding star by sifting through NASA Hubble Space Telescope archival data and conducting follow-up observations using W. M. Keck Observatory ...

The dance of the small galaxies that surround the Milky Way

November 14, 2018

An international team led by researchers from the IAC used data from the ESA satellite Gaia to measure the motion of 39 dwarf galaxies. This data gives information on the dynamics of these galaxies, their histories and their ...

55 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

cantdrive85
2.2 / 5 (22) Oct 15, 2018
So that is that. The accretion model is completely dead, correct?
So I wonder how they expect planets to form now that their only guess is completely falsified.
Nik_2213
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 15, 2018
Looks like there's a zoo of competing processes, and here's an example to up-end the simpler hypotheses !!
jonesdave
2.9 / 5 (25) Oct 15, 2018
So that is that. The accretion model is completely dead, correct?
So I wonder how they expect planets to form now that their only guess is completely falsified.


Wrong, thicko. How they got into their present orbits is a puzzle. The fact that they accrete is pretty much nailed on. Hence why they are in an accretion disk, you cretin.
RNP
4.3 / 5 (12) Oct 15, 2018
Open access copy of paper here: https://arxiv.org...8147.pdf
rossim22
2.6 / 5 (10) Oct 15, 2018
How they got into their present orbits is a puzzle. The fact that they accrete is pretty much nailed on. Hence why they are in an accretion disk, you cretin.


I think you're underestimating the significance that these anomalous observations present.

No, this doesn't falsify the theory of planet formation by accretion.

However, in order to believe that these hot-Jupiters formed via accretion, you must assume that they were formed far from the star (very slowly) and then migrated a long distance over time.

But, now we see the same configuration around a young star. Meaning the hot-Jupiter could not have formed far from the star and migrated.

Rather than making these assumptions, scientists will have to begin looking at alternative planet formation theories to explain how a large gas giant can be formed so close to a young star.
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (16) Oct 15, 2018
Rather than making these assumptions, scientists will have to begin looking at alternative planet formation theories to explain how a large gas giant can be formed so close to a young star.


Yes, and it will still involve accretion. You think these planets are being spat out by the star? Lol. That's the EU lunacy, isn't it?

Digitalbookworm5678
2.7 / 5 (7) Oct 15, 2018
It could be slowly be moving closer to it's star, and we may not be able to notice without a few years more of observation ^_^
rossim22
2.6 / 5 (10) Oct 15, 2018
Rather than making these assumptions, scientists will have to begin looking at alternative planet formation theories to explain how a large gas giant can be formed so close to a young star.


Yes, and it will still involve accretion. You think these planets are being spat out by the star? Lol. That's the EU lunacy, isn't it?



Uhhh what? Who said anything about EU?

If you think it will still involve accretion then why doesn't the current model already work?
jonesdave
3.1 / 5 (21) Oct 15, 2018
Rather than making these assumptions, scientists will have to begin looking at alternative planet formation theories to explain how a large gas giant can be formed so close to a young star.


Didn't read the paper, did you? Of course you didn't;

The hot Jupiter, on the other hand, could have been formed by a variety of mechanisms; from the modeled masses in disk and planets and from the accretion onto the star, the inferred timescale for its inward migration is ∼ 0.4 Myr (Dürmann & Kley 2015). There would have been plenty of time for it to have migrated from a range of outward-lying locations. The roughly Jovian mass planet inferred at 14 au is also easy to account for in terms of existing planet formation models.


It is the two outer planets that are somewhat puzzling. They are at 43 & 108 AU.

rrwillsj
2.2 / 5 (9) Oct 15, 2018
jones & possin, I hate to play peacemaker here. Agitator is so much more fun! However, if you both step back & reconsider one another's original comment?
I believe you are both closer in opinion than your later comments suggest.

I find that Nik's comment is closer to my own opinions. That this Universe is an incoherent, chaotic mess. At best a product of Stupid Design randomly bombarded with no certainty possible. Except on a "local", "temporary" basis, there are no Universal", "Eternal" laws, rules or regulatory authority.

We can dictate all the classifications & categories we imagine to the Cosmos. It disregards our parochial perspective as meaningless monkey screeches.

I am not urging anyone to abandon the Scientific Method. It is well proven to work locally & temporally. As much as I disagree with the guys who can build thermo-nuclear weapons? It would be crazy to pretend they are not successful in their endeavors from theory to working tech.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.8 / 5 (10) Oct 15, 2018
@rrwilliejoe
If the Universe was, indeed, nothing but chaos, the planet that you call home would have been wrecked within the timeframe of its creation/existence 4.5 billion Earth years +/-
Perhaps you might think of it as just a bit of good luck that the genes and RNA that make up your body's cells hadn't been scattered in the dust and gas of the Solar System.

But you and everyone else who is living is here, for all the good that it does.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.9 / 5 (14) Oct 15, 2018
So that is that. The accretion model is completely dead, correct?
So I wonder how they expect planets to form now that their only guess is completely falsified.
says CD85

LOL It might be possible that some good scientists had seen my hypothesis that the planets in this solar system came from another system where the Star went supernova and the force of the winds and concussion kicked out those planets that had been orbiting the old Star. And when that happened, the planets flew out into the Cosmos, eventually slowing down in the vicinity of the disk of dust and gas, where they floated aimlessly until the Sun was formed out of the dust/gas.

And that is why there is very little dust/gas left in the SS. rrwilliejoe read my comment but disagreed, saying something about a "planetoid".
jonesdave
2.9 / 5 (19) Oct 15, 2018
LOL It might be possible that some good scientists had seen my hypothesis that the planets in this solar system cam from another system......


Lol. Not a chance. Either of a scientist seeing your non-hypothesis, or that the planets came from another system. Remember, you are not scientifically literate. You are only here to learn!

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.6 / 5 (13) Oct 15, 2018
And my hypothesis is just as legitimate as any other.
But what have YOU offered, jonesybonesyshitforbrains?
Other than nothing, that is.
jonesdave
2.9 / 5 (17) Oct 15, 2018
jones & possin, I hate to play peacemaker here. Agitator is so much more fun! However, if you both step back & reconsider one another's original comment?
I believe you are both closer in opinion than your later comments suggest.


My point was more to do with Rossim making a false statement, given what was written in the paper. He concentrated his criticism on the hot Jupiter planet, which is not problematic to the current hypothesis. It is the outer planets that are a puzzle. I just get hacked off with people basing their anti-science stance on stuff in press releases, having not read the papers. I'll leave the modelling of the outer planet formation to people who are capable of modelling it. The more we learn, the more that can be tested in future models. It is likely the human race will be extinct by the time we observe a protoplanetary system for long enough to see what happens in reality.

jonesdave
3 / 5 (18) Oct 15, 2018
And my hypothesis is just as legitimate as any other.
But what have YOU offered, jonesybonesyshitforbrains?
Other than nothing, that is.


No, it isn't. It is a heap of sh!t, that does not appear in the scientific literature. I don't model planetary formation. I don't have the resources. I'm happy to leave it to people who know what they're doing. That does not include scientifically illiterate idiots like you.
fourinfinities
1.8 / 5 (12) Oct 15, 2018
Orion & other star forming regions look fractal and chaotic. Why do astronomers expect to see ANY pattern to planet-formation?
Tuxford
2.4 / 5 (13) Oct 15, 2018
Rather than making these assumptions, scientists will have to begin looking at alternative planet formation theories to explain how a large gas giant can be formed so close to a young star.


Yes, and it will still involve accretion. You think these planets are being spat out by the star? Lol. That's the EU lunacy, isn't it?

Once a merger maniac, always a merger maniac, unable to think different. I have been saying for years that one mechanism is that planets are born from the parent star, similar to how stars are born from larger stars, and larger stars beget star clusters, which then grow into galaxies and eventually galactic clusters.

But the DoD cannot permit this realization, else math fairy physics will be upended and a new search for what is actually happening will begin. So watch the spooks get busy with the counter-narrative, no matter the news. Don't believe observable facts. We are in the age of Trump lies.
jonesdave
3.1 / 5 (19) Oct 15, 2018
Orion & other star forming regions look fractal and chaotic. Why do astronomers expect to see ANY pattern to planet-formation?


Because, once a disk of gas and dust starts to collapse gravitationally, then the options are relatively limited. We know a star forms. Usually (could be a brown dwarf). We know planets form. We know that the planets in mature systems settle down to resonant orbits. The planets in this system are not yet in resonant orbits. That is interesting. Eventually, one assumes that they will be. The more we observe planetary formation at various epochs, the more information we can put into future models.
jonesdave
2.9 / 5 (17) Oct 15, 2018
I have been saying for years that one mechanism is that planets are born from the parent star,.....


And who gives a toss what you have been proposing, woo boy? You are a fruitloop. Correct?
Old_C_Code
1.4 / 5 (7) Oct 15, 2018
Best guess is; planets are formed at the same time in a line with the parent star, then gravitationally captured into arbitrary orbits and rotations.

How is the parent star formed?
Why can't planets be formed at the same time? As good a guess as accretion.
Though in an early age the solar system could be entirely electric which would make accretion easy. In a huge mass of electrically conductive plasma you figure anything can happen.
cantdrive85
2.4 / 5 (17) Oct 15, 2018
The fact that they accrete is pretty much nailed on. Hence why they are in an accretion disk, you cretin.

Nope, not a fact but a guess based in ignorance. Two articles in the last month along with this article (and many others) so it has been completely and utterly dismissed by observation and evidence. Only belief results in someone fervently defending such failed guesses. Well, that and pride.

https://phys.org/...lar.html
https://phys.org/...net.html

Just two articles of many that show gravitational accretion doesn't agree with the them science.
But since it's called an accretion disk that somehow equates to more legitimacy.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.7 / 5 (11) Oct 15, 2018
How does the accretion disk itself form; and from where does the gas and dust composition of a disk appear to have been drawn from? There are minute bits of dust, along with gas floating between galaxies and between Star systems. What force is it that draws as much gas and dust together that, as enough is gathered, it will form the shape of a disk long before a Star and/or planetesimals begin to form out of it?
If that force is gravity, where in the disk is the gravity strongest? If the gravity is strongest at the center of the disk, then perhaps that center is where the first planet begins to accrete dust and gas to itself. And, if the gas and dust composition in the disk is limited where it is used up in the making of a planetesimal or planet, could it be that there will be only a planet without a Star to orbit around? If that happens, then that planet is not bounded by any gravitational effects whatsoever and would become a nomad, of sorts until it is captured by a Star.
Solon
1.8 / 5 (10) Oct 16, 2018
In an opto-electro-magnetic universe the matter is created by way of gamma-gamma physics, then acceleration in the tori surrounding these energetic phenomena (referred to as accretion disks) leads to the formation of Coulomb crystals. The sphere is a common but not the only shape that can be formed but is the most common at larger scales and at particular energies, and when energy levels within the tori decrease the crystals become multi-layered and condense to form the hollow cores of planetary bodies.
Most of the matter is created when a star, magnetar etc first comes into being as it is the stored magnetic energy within the intergalactic flux tubes converted to gamma radiation at the pinch by 'sparking' of the vacuum, that starts the whole process of creation.
Our Sun is now, thankfully, in a quiescent mode, but is still capable of occasional burps.

Classical and quantum Coulomb crystals
https://aip.scita....2839297
Whys
1 / 5 (5) Oct 16, 2018
Perhaps the star has changed size.
Ojorf
2.8 / 5 (13) Oct 16, 2018
How does the accretion disk itself form; and from where does the gas and dust composition of a disk appear to have been drawn from?
What force is it that draws as much gas and dust together that, as enough is gathered, it will form the shape of a disk long before a Star and/or planetesimals begin to form out of it?
If that force is gravity, where in the disk is the gravity strongest?
...
speculation speculation speculation


Says SEU

You wonder a lot, don't have a clue and then you start speculating*.

Don't you have a PC or smartphone?
Don't you know how to use it?
Can you google?
Heard of Wikipedia?

Can you read this?
https://en.wikipe...volution

Will you understand it?

(SEU, you don't have to answer. All six were rhetorical questions, we all know the answers)

*more honest translation 'spewing BS'
Ojorf
2.8 / 5 (11) Oct 16, 2018
Had to add this link too, but I somehow missed it, sorry SEU.


https://en.wikipe...pothesis
granville583762
2.7 / 5 (12) Oct 16, 2018
Our Baby Starlet
cantdrive85> So that is that. The accretion model is dead…how they expect planets to form now that their only guess is completely falsified.

Lest we become stick in the muds as fuddy-duddies these stars form in the cosmic eggs of their starry nurseries that as they enter into time and space as Starlets, there sole aim in life is to acquire planets to nurture life in the vacuum for 10billion years
No one suspected these baby Starlets would enter the world of adult Stars at such a tender age of 2million years and concerning our baby starlet, it is surrounded by the very material that nurtured our starlet in its nursery surrounded by its huge disc of dust and ice – because our baby starlet formed in its nursery of icy temperatures of 1/100 of a degree K above absolute freezing, so as we sit judgment on our baby starlet which is barely a youngster we only existed only in the slime of creation so how did it form theses planets while still in its nursery
Tuxford
1.7 / 5 (12) Oct 16, 2018
...No one suspected these baby Starlets would enter the world of adult Stars at such a tender age of 2million years and concerning our baby starlet, ...so as we sit judgment on our baby starlet which is barely a youngster we only existed only in the slime of creation so how did it form theses planets while still in its nursery

Simple. This star is not actually young, but rather old and all grown up. So grown up that it has grown so active in forming the new matter therein that it appears young according to conventional aging models. But it is not young. It is old.

The changing relative concentrations of elements therein is due to the emergence of pristine hydrogen entering our observable universe at ever increasing rates deep inside the core, where conditions are fertile for the production of new matter. But merger maniacs enslaved by the math fairy physics cannot believe there own eyes. And so the Hugh Bang Fantasy goes on.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (15) Oct 16, 2018
The fact that they accrete is pretty much nailed on. Hence why they are in an accretion disk, you cretin.

Nope, not a fact but a guess based in ignorance. Two articles in the last month along with this article (and many others) so it has been completely and utterly dismissed by observation and evidence. Only belief results in someone fervently defending such failed guesses. Well, that and pride.

https://phys.org/...lar.html

Just two articles of many that show gravitational accretion doesn't agree with the them science.
But since it's called an accretion disk that somehow equates to more legitimacy.


Nope, neither of those papers dismiss the accretion model. One looks at what happens with the disk, the other puts possible time constraints on planetary formation. And I don't see any other models on the table. Got one? Lol, that was rhetorical.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (13) Oct 16, 2018
Simple. This star is not actually young, but rather old and all grown up. So grown up that it has grown so active in forming the new matter therein that it appears young according to conventional aging models. But it is not young. It is old.


Oh dear! You were near the back of the queue when brains were handed out, weren't you? If it were old the metallicity would be different. If it were old, then the dust and gas around it would soon have been expelled by stellar winds, and light pressure. You need to stay away from the loon La Violette, or you'll end up as crazy as him. If that's possible.
stellenbosch
1.2 / 5 (12) Oct 16, 2018
"The Earth is still hot from the time the planet formed from the agglomeration of smaller bits and pieces."

The above does not make sense to me.

Did anybody ever research the possibility that planets are formed by and from the sun?, one by one?

When Earth's 'resources' are gone, a new planet is formed, and all the other planets move away from the sun.

That would place Venus in the Goldi Locks zone, and Pluto will join the long list of rogue planets, of which there are about 100 000 per star in the Milky Way.

And yes, I cannot believe that this Universe is only about 14 billion years old:

My feeling is it is beyond trillions and trillions of years.

It can only be Earth's core preventing the oceans from freezing up, as the rays of the sun only penetrate the oceans by about one kilometer.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (14) Oct 16, 2018
The Earth is still hot from the time the planet formed from the agglomeration of smaller bits and pieces."

The above does not make sense to me.

Did anybody ever research the possibility that planets are formed by and from the sun?, one by one


Errrr, no. That would be a really dumb idea! As for the bit that doesn't make sense to you, see here;

http://www.icgc.c...h-s-heat

lefranc
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 16, 2018
What evidence do we have that protoplanetary disks start out homogeneous? Looking at dust ejected from supernovae it seems feasible it could form with gaps already in it.

Is it possible that computer models are being made using assumed initial conditions that are too simplistic? It would fit the trend of science attempting to linearise everything to avoid nonlinear dynamics.
Scroofinator
2 / 5 (9) Oct 16, 2018
It seems obvious that planets form from both electromagnetic eddies during the initial cloud collapse (gas giants), and from accretion later in the life of the solar system (rocky bodies).
granville583762
2.6 / 5 (10) Oct 17, 2018
An Adult star posing as a Starlet to get brownie points in the ageing criteria!
granville583762> how did it form theses planets while still in its nursery

Tuxford > This star is not young, but old and all grown up. So grown up that it has grown so active in forming the new matter therein that it appears young according to conventional aging models. But it is not young. It is old. Changing relative concentrations of elements therein is due to the emergence of pristine hydrogen entering our observable universe at ever increasing rates deep inside the core, where conditions are fertile for the production of new matter. But merger maniacs enslaved by the math fairy physics cannot believe there own eyes. And so the Hugh Bang Fantasy goes on.

This is obviously why hydrogen is so abundant when its supposedly turning into helium, so you are spot on Tuxford, too active it could blow these planets away in an adolescent tantrum and releasing even more pristine protons!
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 17, 2018
@granville
Ahaa - Pristine protons.
I must confess, granville, that I too, have been borrowing your originating use of the term "Pristine" for my own ends in this site. It IS a rather useful term to ascribe to many operations wrt the scientific methods as each of us sees them.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 17, 2018
It seems obvious that planets form from both electromagnetic eddies during the initial cloud collapse (gas giants), and from accretion later in the life of the solar system (rocky bodies).

says Scroofinator

You might be correct, in that EM could be responsible for attracting dust and gas in the cloud to result in the accretion of all that materiel into a disk. eg. Watch as dust motes are attracted to your freshly washed and machine dried pants legs.

If it were only left up to gravity to do the job, then it might not be possible for a gravitational accretion of the materiel to occur as a flat disk. ONLY after the accretion has already occurred could gravity begin to cause Mass to attract and then clump together.

But the gas giants required an enormous supply of Hydrogen gas - as did the Star in the centre of the Solar System. Depending on which ones were well supplied initially, the remainder would have had to make do with whatever was left to it.
Scroofinator
3 / 5 (8) Oct 17, 2018
But the gas giants required an enormous supply of Hydrogen gas

I think they form in the same fashion as the star, but they start to form slightly after the star and there's typically only enough material to become gas giants.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 17, 2018
@scroofinator
I agree. Old Sol got first dibs on the Hydrogen gas pockets in the cloud, the reason being that the dusty materiel became denser through gravity long after EM had done its work to make possible the accretion of the dust and gas into a flattened disk, and then compression and collapse ensued, creating heat to start up the processes that would trigger the next phase.
I have my own opinion of what happened next long before Fusion took place, but the main event was the accretion of the disk. which eventually made all the rest possible.
Scroofinator
2.7 / 5 (7) Oct 18, 2018
I have my own opinion of what happened

Don't we all lol. In any case both EM and gravity clearly play a role in system formation. Science is far too much like politics these days, everybody picks sides when the reality is the answer is somewhere in between.
Tuxford
2.3 / 5 (9) Oct 18, 2018
Planets Found to Be Larger Than the Disks They Come From

https://www.quant...0181004/
FredJose
2 / 5 (4) Oct 23, 2018
The fact that they accrete is pretty much nailed on.

So far there is absolutely ZERO observational evidence confirming that the accretion model actually works. People are currently overly excited by some dust ring(s) around some star(s) and have made up their minds that it's an accretion disk.

But it is just sheer last gasp hope at this stage.

The nebular accretion model is just so much space dust at the moment and holds absolutely no water.

Those hanging onto it are doing it on blind faith. It is religious dogma at the moment with not a shred of truth in it. Unless and until someone actually confirms that theory with an actual recorded observation it is just so much hot gas.

People need to understand what it is they are pinning their hopes on.
FredJose
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 23, 2018
@jonesdave
And I don't see any other models on the table. Got one? Lol, that was rhetorical.

The one model that was used to accurately predict the magnetic fields of the planets in the solar system is still outside your vision since you do not subscribe to creation.

Perhaps you'd like to consider it - given the fact that it was used to make actual real, confirmed predictions:

http://www.icr.or...elds.pdf

Of course you can simply dismiss it as another creationist misstep but then it will surely indicate a certain bias on your part. Your choice.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 23, 2018
Of course you can simply dismiss it as another creationist misstep but then it will surely indicate a certain bias on your part. Your choice.


Creationists = dumb. No point in taking any of that seriously.

FredJose
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 23, 2018
@jonesdave
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

2 The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.

3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

SCVGoodToGo
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 23, 2018
Fred, go be pious somewhere else.
theredpill
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 23, 2018
"Fred, go be pious somewhere else."

"And I will send them strong delusion so that they will believe the lie"

Be pious wherever you want Fred. It's a free internet.
Tuxford
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 23, 2018
For any actually interested, LaViolette has now commented on how SubQuantum Kinectics and his continuous creation model, explains this unexpected observation.

http://etheric.co...inetics/
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 24, 2018
"Fred,

"And I will send them strong delusion so that they will believe the lie"

Be pious wherever you want Fred. It's a free internet.
says theredpill

It appears that the strong delusion had arrived in physorg years ago after the members of the 5 StarClub signed on to take over this site with their own brand of pseudoscience. They became the Haters, the Controllers, the Liars, the Soul Stealers, and the Daemons Who Seek to Convert the Good to Evil Ways.
These club cultists make certain that their own delusions are always on display in every forum that they enter to comment.
You could say that the delusion was sent to have them believe the lie of "Pop Cosmology" so that they will be known for their beliefs and stick with them in spite of the Truth.
Their leaders, SpookyOtto, stumpydumpy, barako, ojorf, DaShriek, and the rest of the menagerie have proclaimed themselves to be the rulers and kings of this science website. They expect everyone else to bow down to them.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 24, 2018
@theredpill et al
I have sent a suggestion to the site managers to set up a new category where Creationists may discuss the Science of Creation. That is the part of the Bible which had been miswritten by the scribes wrt Genesis - before the journey of the Hebrew patriarch Avram to Canaan that resulted in the history of the Jews. I wish to discuss my theorem on the topic, as the Creation was most definitely an act whereby Science and its Laws were created/came to be along with the creation of Matter/Energy.
savvys84
3 / 5 (2) Oct 25, 2018
oops the astronomers have a lot to learn by this discovery. Gods creation is mind boggling
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 25, 2018
oops the astronomers have a lot to learn by this discovery. Gods creation is mind boggling

says savvys84

The surprising thing is that many scientists (including great Astronomers) ARE Creationists. They may not be members of any religion, but they DO acknowledge that something cannot come out of nothing - especially when those 'somethings' are so obviously programmed to do what they do, and to do it well.
But those scientists who are not Creationists, for whatever reason, that is their choice to believe or not.
There is nobody to twist arms to force mature individuals to believe in something in which they may be ambivalent or simply cannot abide. Stephen Hawking was an atheist and, upon his death he has finally found the Truth - and may G-d have mercy on his Soul.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 25, 2018
""It is currently impossible to say whether the extreme planetary architecture seen in CI Tau is common in hot Jupiter systems because the way that these sibling planets were detected—through their effect on the protoplanetary disc – would not work in older systems which no longer have a protoplanetary disc," said Professor Cathie Clarke from Cambridge's Institute of Astronomy, the study's first author."

I had made a suggestion this year in another physorg forum that when a Star explodes as a massive supernova, any planets that had orbited the Star will get kicked out of their orbits/system and will travel throughout the Cosmos until they are caught by the gravitational attraction of another Star, or they will slow down in flight and wander into a protoplanetary disk where no Star exists, as yet. The planets are of a size to have survived the journey through Space and they are mature planets. So they find a new home and a new young Star forms in that protoplanetary disk.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 25, 2018
-contd-
My theory didn't seem to go over big with the denizens of physorg and the 5 Star Club at the time when I proposed it, perhaps because I am not a scientist and they may think that it is only scientists who have the right to evolve such an idea.
And yet, this article appears to fit quite well onto my theory, which would make a lot of sense, given that the details in the article show that the disk is still quite dusty/dirty, which indicate that there is plenty of room for planets to form - but haven't formed yet.
But then, how did older planets, including a hot Jupiter, form within the disk when the Star in the centre is so young?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.