Asteroid Diversity Points to a 'Snow Globe' Solar System

early asteroid belt

As of today, there are currently 1453 known potentially hazardous asteroids that could impact Earth and cause a real planetary catastrophe. Given the new diverse “snow globe” model of our solar system in relation to asteroids, how may more don’t we know about? It only takes one. Of more pragmatic interest, this new paper suggests a diverse asteroid population stirred up in the ‘snow globe’ model was essential to bringing water to Earth.

From the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics Cambridge, MA –

Our solar system seems like a neat and orderly place, with small, rocky worlds near the Sun and big, gaseous worlds farther out, all eight planets following orbital paths unchanged since they formed.

However, the true history of the solar system is more riotous. Giant planets migrated in and out, tossing interplanetary flotsam and jetsam far and wide. New clues to this tumultuous past come from the asteroid belt.

“We found that the giant planets shook up the asteroids like flakes in a snow globe,” says lead author Francesca DeMeo, a Hubble postdoctoral fellow at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

Millions of asteroids circle the Sun between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter, in a region known as the main asteroid belt. Traditionally, they were viewed as the pieces of a failed planet that was prevented from forming by the influence of Jupiter’s powerful gravity. Their compositions seemed to vary methodically from drier to wetter, due to the drop in temperature as you move away from the Sun.

That traditional view changed as astronomers recognized that the current residents of the main asteroid belt weren’t all there from the start. In the early history of our solar system the giant planets ran amok, migrating inward and outward substantially. Jupiter may have moved as close to the Sun as Mars is now. In the process, it swept the asteroid belt nearly clean, leaving only a tenth of one percent of its original population.

As the planets migrated, they stirred the contents of the solar system. Objects from as close to the Sun as Mercury, and as far out as Neptune, all collected in the main asteroid belt.

“The asteroid belt is a melting pot of objects arriving from diverse locations and backgrounds,” explains DeMeo.

Using data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, DeMeo and co-author Benoit Carry (Paris Observatory) examined the compositions of thousands of asteroids within the main belt. They found that the asteroid belt is more diverse than previously realized, especially when you look at the smaller asteroids.

This finding has interesting implications for the history of Earth. Astronomers have theorized that long-ago asteroid impacts delivered much of the water now filling Earth’s oceans. If true, the stirring provided by migrating planets may have been essential to bringing those asteroids.

This raises the question of whether an Earth-like exoplanet would also require a rain of asteroids to bring water and make it habitable. If so, then Earth-like worlds might be rarer than we thought.

The paper describing these findings appears in the January 30, 2014 issue of Nature.

Headquartered in Cambridge, Mass., the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA) is a joint collaboration between the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory and the Harvard College Observatory. CfA scientists, organized into six research divisions, study the origin, evolution and ultimate fate of the universe.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Ben D.

“This raises the question of whether an Earth-like exoplanet would also require a rain of asteroids to bring water and make it habitable. If so, then Earth-like worlds might be rarer than we thought.”
This raises the question of whether asteroids are common to all star systems. If so, then they would bring water to Earth-like exoplanets and thus Earth-like worlds may be more common than we thought.

Alan Robertson

Since the Hubbell Deep Field images show nearly 3,000 galaxies in an area said to be only 1/24 millionth of the sky, then it’s a good bet that there are lots of habitable planets out there. I doubt if they’re that much smarter than us and it’s probably a real good idea that we’re so far apart.

This finding has interesting implications for the history of Earth. Astronomers have theorized that long-ago asteroid impacts delivered much of the water now filling Earth’s oceans. If true, the stirring provided by migrating planets may have been essential to bringing those asteroids.
Here is a different take on this [slow to load] http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.7490.pdf :
“The asteroid (4) Vesta, parent body of the Howardite-Eucrite-Diogenite meteorites, is one of the first bodies that formed, mostly from volatile-depleted material, in the Solar System. The Dawn mission recently provided evidence that hydrated material was delivered to Vesta, possibly in a continuous way, over the last 4 Ga, while the study of the eucritic meteorites revealed a few samples that crystallized in presence of water and volatile elements. The formation of Jupiter and probably its migration occurred in the period when eucrites crystallized, and triggered a phase of bombardment that caused icy planetesimals to cross the asteroid belt. In this work, we study the flux of icy planetesimals on Vesta during the Jovian Early Bombardment and, using hydrodynamic simulations, the outcome of their collisions with the asteroid. We explore how the migration of the giant planet would affect the delivery of water and volatile materials to the asteroid and we discuss our results in the context of the geophysical and collisional evolution of Vesta. In particular, we argue that the observational data are best reproduced if the bulk of the impactors was represented by 1-2 km wide planetesimals and if Jupiter underwent a limited (a fraction of au) displacement.”

Gail Combs

Alan Robertson says: @ January 30, 2014 at 4:42 pm
….. it’s probably a real good idea that we’re so far apart.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Predators are generally smarter than prey….

Rhoda R

Jupiter may have been as close to the sun as Mars? Given Jupiter’s gravitational field/strength how did we end up with Mars, Earth, Venus and (possibly) Mercury – wouldn’t they have been either swallowed up by Jupiter or torn apart in the the gravitational tide wars between Jupiter and the Sun?

TRG

Need to underline real in the first sentence.

Bill Illis

I think the evidence shows that we have not been hit by anything larger that up to 15 kms in the last 4 billion years. That means, we are one lucky planet.
The largest impact crater is Vredefort South Africa from 2.0 billion years ago and it was only a little larger than the Chicxulub asteroid which wiped out the dinosaurs.
From the modeling and the study of the effects of these asteroid impacts in the 10 km range (as these two were), we wouldn’t have life on the planet if a 20 km asteroid hit us or, especially if a 20 km comet coming in at faster speeds hit us or if one of the very largest comets at 100 kms across hit us.
Perhaps the early Earth, just after the Mars-size planet impact that created the moon and established the final size of Earth 4.4 billion years, was hit by larger asteroids/or comets in the first 200 hundred million years afterward. But after that, we have been one lucky planet. We know this because you are reading this.

Kpar

Ben, I highly recommend the book “Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe” by Peter D. Ward and Donald Brownlee
These guys really did their homework, and it ties in nicely to your comment.

OssQss

Nice ! Thanks for the path to it Anthony.
Leif, thanks for the pdf too. It was not slow to load from my seat. Albeit, I will spend a significant amount of time thinking about it tonight, so maybe you are correct in the end 🙈🙊🙉

MattS

“Given the new diverse “snow globe” model of our solar system in relation to asteroids”
So, how long will it take for all of the asteroids to settle at the bottom of the solar system if someone (God?) doesn’t come along and shake it again?

Tom J

Another potential catastrophe caused by global warming. Apparently, as the Earth’s atmosphere heats up due to anthropogenic causes, the atmosphere expands. Thus, as this planet sails through the heavens, CAGW causes it to be a bigger target and therefore more likely to be hit by one of those asteroids. I promise, on my honor, that I am not making this up. I have read this.
This gets me to thinking. Who knows, maybe in the early, formative days of the Solar System the Earth’s atmosphere was so laden with CO2 that it was a really hot place with a really heat ballooned atmosphere that made it a very large target for all those asteroids near its path. And all those asteroids sucker punching the planet brought in lots and lotsa water. See, CO2 controls everything.

Gary Pearse

Man, this is a fanciful tale! I could take some speculative musing about earth’s water, etc but this kind of detail in a CWAG (crazy wild ass guess) makes it Hollywood material. I think CAGW (which is just a mixup of CWAG) must have encouraged scientists to lose all restraint and open the door to “cubist” or “postimpressionism” physics. I knew this Ravetz was going to be trouble. At least there should have been a sober explanation for these planets jumping all over the place and then settling down to smallest at the front, biggest at the back like my grade two class photo. Those asteroids, to not have been sucked in by all these giant vagabonds, are made of stern stuff and must have an attitude. Perhaps they are the skeptics of the order.

Sean

I have only one question – how much more CO2 must I output personally in order to increase the mass of the earth enough to alter the orbit of an asteroid so it strikes Washington DC on a day when all the climate lobbyists are there?

[And] then throw in the “binary planet” system that we reside in – http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2014/01/25/a-remarkable-lunar-paper-and-numbers-on-major-standstill/
And the ingredients for life on other worlds becomes much rarer. It seems we have to look outside our planet for answers on the climate. At least for parts of the answer.

thingadonta

There is another obvious theory about where most of the water of Earth came from. The Earth itself.
When magmas cool, they expel water. The top ~30-70km of the earths crust formed very early on after the planet formed when the earth cooled, and during this process vast volumes of water were expelled, forming the oceans. There is enough volume in the earth to more than account for the world’s oceans. Moreover, the earths crust continually mixes with the mantle’s through e.g. convection currents, providing a further source of oxygen and hydrogen. (It is also possible that during more active tectonics, more water reaches the outer surface, affecting sea levels).
Most astronomers have little to no understanding of magmatic processes, the processes of magma-generating water still goes on today. On other planets, in some cases there is no crust (if it is a gaseous planet), or the water was lost as gas as the planet was too hot (Venus and Mercury). Venus has evidence of plate tectonics, but which has apparently shut down. Mars, being a rocky planet, should have also expelled its’ water during cooling, which is why they are still looking for water there.

Konrad

“Their compositions seemed to vary methodically from drier to wetter, due to the drop in temperature as you move away from the Sun.”
A very important point. There is a “snow line” in the solar system at 3 AU, inside which ice cannot last in the light of the sun.
Remember what Stephan-Boltzmann worshippers say about earth’s oceans? That without downwelling LWIR from the atmosphere they would freeze solid.
Now lukewarm ManBearPiglet believers can go all “flappy-hands” about ice sublimating in vacuum over -20C or diurnal SW cycling at the earth’s surface reducing available SW but it won’t work. Their figures are so far out it makes no difference. They applied SB instantaneous radiative flux equations to liquid heated at depth by SW.
If you remove all features of the atmosphere above the oceans except pressure they would get hot enough to boil the whales.
The NET effect of the atmosphere on the oceans is cooling. There is only one effective cooling mechanism for the atmosphere. Radiative gases.

u.k.(us)

Leave it to Leif, to upset ones world-view 🙂

Gary Pearse

thingadonta says:
January 30, 2014 at 6:00 pm
“There is another obvious theory about where most of the water of Earth came from. The Earth itself.”
Yeah, average granite magmas have about 5% water. This is the trouble with astronomers speculating on earth science. They linearly think the stuff has to rain down only from above. Also, why would the snowballs wait so patiently for the earth to be fully formed before they attacked. Hey, there must have been even more of them in the earlier chaotic period while the earth was agglomerating.

Ed, Mr. Jones

Why would Asteroids be more likely to be composed of, or with water than any other celestial body?
I don’t see an explanation or speculation thereto.

Truthseeker

Gary Pearse says:
January 30, 2014 at 5:33 pm
CAGW = Crazy As Guesses Wild
Works for me.

RoHa

“As of today, there are currently 1453 known potentially hazardous asteroids that could impact Earth and cause a real planetary catastrophe.”
See. I said we were doomed.

u.k.(us) says:
January 30, 2014 at 6:12 pm (replying to)
lsvalgaard says:
January 30, 2014 at 4:46 pm
Leave it to Leif, to upset ones world-view 🙂

One’s world view.
Two worlds’ views.
Three worlds’ views.
Four worlds’ views …. 8<)

[snip – off topic and out of bounds -mod]

u.k.(us)

RACookPE1978 says:
January 30, 2014 at 6:31 pm
=======
Did you have to rub it in ?
I’ll never remember it.

Oil Vey!
T’was not ye who were commented, but the Leif who was to be (indirectly) complimented (via your words – however ingrammarnumerical they may be) for educating the world’s views!

Leonard Lane

Hmmm, wondered if the referenced Immanuel Velikovsky in his 1950’s book “Worlds in Collision”?

Goldie

I think Earth like planets are exceedingly rare. Its not just a matter of finding a rocky planet of roughly the right size that orbits a sun like ours and has a bit of water on it.
The Earth as we know it is the outcome of a series of massively improbable events:
We have a magnetic field – not so common even in our own solar system, but this protects us from the solar wind and protects our atmosphere from being stripped away. It also allows life to persist.
In order to have a magnetic field like ours also requires the coming together of a serious amount of factors. We have a molten core – which requires a certain amount of radioactivity and the core is iron rich so that when the Earth spins it generates a magnetic field. However, the Earth spins at a massive rate compared to most other planets and this should create such a wobble that the Earth should spin on a horizontal axis. Except that we have a moon of a certain size that acts as a dampener and keeps us vertical enough that we have seasons. Incidentally the Moon also acts as a “sweeper” for a lot of the asteroids that would otherwise have been caught in Earths gravity.
It seems to me that if you go looking for lumps of rock circling stars at the right distance you will find plenty of them. But if you are looking for Earth Like planets then that would be much harder.
I always understood that water came from the asteroids or at least meteorites, so I don’t know why this is something new.

dudleyhorscroft

To think of all the hate that Immanuel Velikovsky stirred up when he had the effrontery to suggest that Venus had been ejected from Jupiter and had wandered the Solar System as a comet, with near misses on Earth and Mars, before finally settling down in its current orbit!
Do you suppose that his reputation could finally be restored to him? He may be right or wrong, but so far there has been no conclusive evidence that he was wrong in any major part of his thesis – though possibly in parts that are not essential. Indeed, all recent discoveries tend to support his theories rather than the views of those who opposed and denigrated him so vigorously.
Nearly fell off the chair that “Nature” of all journals, actually prints a suggestion that Jupiter had at one time been as close to the Sun as Mars is now, and that the giant planets (including Saturn, Uranus and Neptune) “ran amok, migrating inward and outward substantially”. Where are Harlow Shapley, Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin, Carl Sagan and Isaac Asimov now they are needed to defend the orthodox view – see, for example: http://www.unz.org/Pub/Reporter-1950mar14-00037 for Professor Payne-Gaposchkin’s article “Nonsense, Dr. Velikovsky!”
And one might wish to consider CAGW in the light of the last column of Professor Payne-Gaposchkin’s article!!

MattS

Goldie
“The Earth as we know it is the outcome of a series of massively improbable events:”
We have no way of knowing how improbable those events are in the larger galaxy / universe.
The only empirical evidence we have is our own solar system. Odds of 1 in 8, 1 in 9 or 1 in 10 depending on how you want to count planets. Odds of 1 in 10 do not count as massively improbable in my book.

@MattS – Kind of like a lottery winner saying the odds are not too bad, as he only bought 10 tickets and one of them won the jackpot.

I’ve yet to see a snow globe where the particles roughly align in a plane, unless you forget to shake the globe.

Goldie

But why wouldn’t [the] planets have been closer. At one time our own moon was orbiting much closer to the Earth and the Earth was spinning much faster. All a consequence of a collision with Thea However as time passed and the spin has slowed, so the Moon has moved away from the Earth. I think that’s basic physics – conservation of momentum, but I’m not sure – I’m a Geologist precisely because I was no good at Maths.

u.k.(us)

RACookPE1978 says:
January 30, 2014 at 6:50 pm
===============
Gotcha, it’s all good.
My bad 🙁

Brian H

Konrad says:
January 30, 2014 at 6:03 pm

If you remove all features of the atmosphere above the oceans except pressure they would get hot enough to boil the whales.
The NET effect of the atmosphere on the oceans is cooling. There is only one effective cooling mechanism for the atmosphere. Radiative gases.

Agree. Look up the work of Jinan Cao.

Bennett In Vermont

Gail Combs says: at 4:49 pm “Predators are generally smarter than prey….”
But what if what we call humanity is only a 4 on a predatory scale of 10?
There may be Kzin out there with a Payton Manning as QB.. How’s that for mixing cultural reference?

Chad Wozniak

@Tom J –
As I understand it, the original composition of the Earth’s atmosphere, after the planet settled down at the end of its formative period, was roughly 80 percent nitrogen and 20 percent CO2 (ignoring the 1 percent or less of argon and other noble gases). Then, starting about 2 billion years ago, blue-green algae evolved and began the photosynthesis that eventually converted the CO2 to O2, a process that was essentially complete sometime before the Cambrian explosion of life on Earth, 600-700 million years ago. Clearly, there was no runaway heating on Earth during all that time, and there appears to have been at least one time where the Earth froze over entirely before the advent of the blue-green algae and the consequent redux of all that CO2.
Other commenters – anything to add (or correct) to this?

gbaikie

– Ed, Mr. Jones says:
January 30, 2014 at 6:25 pm
Why would Asteroids be more likely to be composed of, or with water than any other celestial body?
I don’t see an explanation or speculation thereto.-
Start with there is a lot hydrogen and Helium in the universe. The next most abundant element
is oxygen. So 2 hydrogen + oxygen is water. There also a lot H2O in the universe.
So asteroids in the main asteroid belt don’t have a lot water compared to other celestial bodies.
But also there lots asteroids in our solar system- or the asteroids in main asteroid belt are small fraction of all asteroid in our solar system.
The mass of main asteroid belt:
“The total mass of the Asteroid belt is estimated to be 3.0 to 3.6×10^21 kilograms, which is 4 percent of the Earth’s Moon.
Of that total mass, one third is accounted for by Ceres alone.”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/a/asteroid_belt.htm
Ceres may have more water than all the asteroids in main asteroid belt. The amount of water
on Ceres is not known precisely, but estimate of it having more fresh water than Earth- and fresh water on Earth is very small percent of ocean water.
“This 100-km-thick mantle (23%–28% of Ceres by mass; 50% by volume) contains 200 million cubic kilometers of water, which is more than the amount of fresh water on the Earth”-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceres_%28dwarf_planet%29
Earth’s oceans is about 1.3 trillion cubic km and fresh is about 10 million cubic km:
http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/earthhowmuch.html
And polar caps and glaciers hold most of fresh water.
So it’s very unlikely Ceres and the asteroids in main belt have as much water as Earth does.
Jupiter moon, Europa probably couple times more water than Earth.
http://io9.com/theres-more-water-on-jupiters-moon-europa-than-there-5913104
Mars is thought to have more tens trillion tonnes- or more than 10,000 cubic km of water.
Our Moon has somewhere around 10 billion tons- 10 cubic km of water. With perhaps millions of tonnes which might “commercially minable”. Moon used to be considered to not have “any water to speak of” which largely true. Moon is extremely dry, but water has be found in lunar poles-
making the Moon somewhat “damp” at pole. To be minable it need to be about 5% per volume
of water. And somewhat dry dirt on Earth has about this amount of water in it. Mars compare to Earth is very dry, but compared to the Moon, fairly wet.
So asteroid of main asterisk belt probably have far less water than Earth, but all asteroid in solar system- particularly if include in the count all dwarf planets like Ceres- which have yet to be discovered- probably has many thousands of times the amount water as Earth.

Bennett In Vermont

Chad Wozniak says:at 7:53 pm
Clarke and Baxter’s “The Light Of Other Days” provides a narrative that allows one to envision the depth of time that our planet has experienced, and the evolution that may have occurred between the various climactic ages. Highly recommended!

Kpar

I have read it… excellent book.

Frederick Michael


MattS says:
January 30, 2014 at 7:19 pm
Goldie
“The Earth as we know it is the outcome of a series of massively improbable events:”
We have no way of knowing how improbable those events are in the larger galaxy / universe.
The only empirical evidence we have is our own solar system. Odds of 1 in 8, 1 in 9 or 1 in 10 depending on how you want to count planets. Odds of 1 in 10 do not count as massively improbable in my book.

You always exclude the observer when gathering stats on any population. If you’re, say, gathering statistics on the average number of customers in, say, a restaurant, you should not count yourself.
Now, since our planet seems to occupy a piece of prime real estate in terms of distance from the sun (and two planets cannot, by definition, cannot share) the life being “oh fer” all the others doesn’t tell us much either.

Chad Wozniak says:
January 30, 2014 at 7:53 pm (replying to)
@Tom J –
As I understand it, the original composition of the Earth’s atmosphere, after the planet settled down at the end of its formative period, was roughly 80 percent nitrogen and 20 percent CO2 (ignoring the 1 percent or less of argon and other noble gases). Then, starting about 2 billion years ago, blue-green algae evolved and began the photosynthesis that eventually converted the CO2 to O2, a process that was essentially complete sometime before the Cambrian explosion of life on Earth, 600-700 million years ago.

Better estimate is 3-4 billion years ago for the first plants. A little after the moon-earth collision about 4.3 – 4 billion years ago that basically blew a large part of the crust away. The earliest fossils I have on the shelf are those of the first oxygen-releasing “plants”. Best we can tell tell, the earliest atmosphere was opaque – absorbing all transmitted (visible) light .. until the plants grew and cleared the atmosphere into its present 21% – 78% mix of (transparent) gasses.

Frederick Michael says:
January 30, 2014 at 8:11 pm (replying to)

MattS says:(replying to)
January 30, 2014 at 7:19 pm
Goldie
“The Earth as we know it is the outcome of a series of massively improbable events:”

We have no way of knowing how improbable those events are in the larger galaxy / universe…
.. Now, since our planet seems to occupy a piece of prime real estate in terms of distance from the sun (and two planets cannot, by definition, cannot share) the life being “oh fer” all the others doesn’t tell us much either.

The probability is actually much larger against any local equivalent life-as-we-know-it planet:
Graphically, http://xkcd.com/1298/

It must be noted that this is all speculation based on the new finding of a variety of types of asteroids, which could mane all sorts of things. They talk of Jupiter wandering in among the terrestrial planets and yet there is no evidence of that whatsoever. it is just scientists speculating.
Speculation is not science.
People here at WUWT should be well aware of that by now.

gbaikie

“Best we can tell tell, the earliest atmosphere was opaque – absorbing all transmitted (visible) light .. until the plants grew and cleared the atmosphere into its present 21% – 78% mix of (transparent) gasses.”
To sunlight CO2 is slightly more transparent than nitrogen and/or oxygen.
The only reason for Earth being opaque would due to dust [- including volcanic pollution].
But in terms of million of years rather centuries- thousands of years high levels of volcanic activity, earth skies should have as clear to sunlight as current atmosphere.
Some think there may have been more atmosphere- if you had 2 or 3 more nitrogen
it would slightly be dimmer, particularly morning late afternoon.

Tom J

Chad Wozniak
January 30, 2014 at 7:53 pm
says:
@Tom J –
Thanks for the comment. I was actually sort of kidding with my earlier comment, although the part about the Earth being a bigger target for asteroid hits is in the literature as one of the litany of horrors CO2 causes.
Best wishes.

RACookPE1978 said:
January 30, 2014 at 8:20pm
“…the earliest atmosphere was opaque – absorbing all transmitted (visible) light .. until the plants grew and cleared the atmosphere…”
——–
If the atmosphere was opaque (sunlight could not penetrate), then how could photosynthesis have arisen? Plants grew in an environment of no light?
Sorry, I must not be understanding something.

MattS

RACookPE1978,
That is nothing more that a bit of speculation that presumes that we do/can know the probability of any particular star having an earth like planet within the appropriate orbital range. The ability to actually detect exo-planets is still in its infancy and the probabilities are a complete unknown.

Hoser

We live in an average galaxy orbiting an average star. What? Are we in the teenage of astronomy? Questioning whether we are more strange or weird compared to the other kids? Later we find out we’re quite normal.
What might be unusual about Earth is our Moon. It seems to me the stability our companion gives us has helped make the biosphere more stable. In particular, it has given us a chance to develop intelligence and a civilization. That part might be very unusual.
It’s why I find it terribly dangerous to denigrate the important role of humans on Earth. We represent perhaps the only chance for Earth to spread the seeds of life far from this planet. If we fail, will there ever be another chance for a second intelligent species to rise up and do the job?
Don’t we have a duty to use the energy stored on Earth for millions of years for the ultimate valuable purpose? In the same way, trees and other plants devote large amounts of energy to reproduction. It is only natural we carry out the natural process of seeding life on other worlds. That’s what life does. Seeds and animals travel across oceans to start a new life on islands. Space is the next ocean we (more than just humans) need to cross.
It turns out what we are doing with science and technology is exactly natural.

Gkell1

Gary Pearse wrote –
“Yeah, average granite magmas have about 5% water. This is the trouble with astronomers speculating on earth science. They linearly think the stuff has to rain down only from above. Also, why would the snowballs wait so patiently for the earth to be fully formed before they attacked. Hey, there must have been even more of them in the earlier chaotic period while the earth was agglomerating.”
Astronomers indeed !,in a forum that can’t appreciate the most basic of basic correlations between daily temperature fluctuations and the rotational cause behind it,how is it possible to discuss the neat meshing of the 26 mile spherical deviation of the planet with crustal evolution and motion using a common rotational mechanism.
Grow up for goodness sake ! ,the Earth is not a ‘rocky planet’, it has a huge rotating viscous mass with a very thin fractured crust and especially oceanic crust. All rotating celestial objects with exposed viscous compositions display an uneven rotational gradient between Equatorial and Polar latitudes and with all the clues imprinted on the Earth surface crust,and especially the Mid Atlantic Ridge, there is every reason not to exempt the Earth from the same rotational feature of all rotating celestial objects.
Astronomers !, what astronomers ?. There are plenty of theorists chanting voodoo at the celestial arena and living off the using doom laden predictions but not a single one who can interpret a basic temperature graph as a signature of planetary dynamics. Turns out that this forum is no better or worse than their opponents in this respect.

Santa Baby

“Predators are generally smarter than prey….”
Or animals that catch gras for a living don’t need to be smart?
““…the earliest atmosphere was opaque – absorbing all transmitted (visible) light .. until the plants grew and cleared the atmosphere…”
——–
If the atmosphere was opaque (sunlight could not penetrate), then how could photosynthesis have arisen? Plants grew in an environment of no light?”
I think what they mean with opaque is that you couldn’t see earths surface from space. Just like Venus today. That doesn’t mean that sunlight didn’t reach earths surface?
Another thing, didn’t it start with plankton in water?

Berényi Péter

Early Sun underwent a violent T Tauri stage. During that time magnetohydrodynamics played a central role in the formation of the system by transferring a huge amount of angular momentum outward to the protoplanetary disk, which can’t be done by gravitational forces alone.
Now, magnetohydrodynamics leads to notoriously intractable mathematical problems, so I do not think it is possible to construct an adequate reductionist computational model of solar system formation.

M Courtney

This is just Velikosky revisited all over again.
There are three issues that killed off Worlds in Collision the first time:
1 There’s just no evidence that it ever happened.
2 Isn’t it weid how we ended up with all the gas giants in the outside and the rocky planets tidily in the middle if the gas giants can wander? How very tidy. (Now stronger as some exoplanets show gas giants near their sun so there’s no tidyng tendency).
3 How come so few asteroids were sent out of the plane of the solar system? Some were, so it can happen, but Jupiter seemed to have missed nearly everything on its meanderings.
Is there anything here to overcome the three issues?