Talk:History of Solar System formation and evolution hypotheses

Rm from alternative theories
In 1975-1977, after the discovery that He and Ne inside meteorites are always accompanied by isotopically anomalous Xe, Kr, and Ar, while no He nor Ne is inside meteorite phases that incorporate isotopically normal Xe, Kr, and Ar, two academics claimed that the solar system was formed from the heterogeneous debris of a single supernova ), with the Sun accumulated in the core of the supernova, the iron meteorites and the cores of terrestrial planets formed from elements synthesised in the hot stellar interior, and the outer planets and carbonaceous phase of chondritic meteorites being formed from the only region that could contain low-Z elements, i.e. the cooler outer zone.

First of all, it needs to be rewritten so that it makes sense to the lay reader. And second, is this hypothesis broadly accepted now? Has it been revised? Discredited? there's no indication in the text.  Serendi pod ous  18:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Relating information to star life cycles
I created stub sections for white dwarfs and planetary nebulae by "borrowing" a few paragraphs from their respective articles. However, neither article explains how the connection was made between the composition and structure of these objects and their place in the lifecycle of stars. This really should be added, I think.  Serendi pod ous  05:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone must have deleted this past entry's history completely but i put out the fact that the moon was a sirian star which died in our vast milky way galaxy. It became a dead star turned planet in the previous system and created the earth in this one eg h20=oxygen and water, water is hydrogen, hydrogen is a gas made of stars. H20 came from our moon because oxygen came from hydrogen or simply put water made oxygen (really light water or frozen gas). Hydrogen is water! The end.--Murriemir (talk) 03:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Planetary migration
I'm a little wary of creating a "history of planetary migration hypotheses" subsection, as it may very well hand the lunatic fringe an excuse to include Velikovsky. Nonetheless I think that some mention of how the idea of planetary migration came to be scientifically accepted is warranted.  Serendi pod ous  13:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Outstanding Issues
"However, the giant impact model has been criticised for being too explanatory; it can be expanded to explain any future discoveries and as such, makes no predictions. " Perhaps the author of this line had something particular in mind when it was written, but as far as I can tell criticizing the theory for having too much explanatory power is tantamount to criticizing the theory for being too good. And more, "it can be expanded to explain any future discoveries" seems to me to actually mean "it (the theory) makes all the predictions we want (explaining any future discoveries)" thus, essentially contradicting the immediately following line "(it) makes no predictions." If the theory is really unscientific, which I believe is the true criticism here, I think that that criticism needs to be more adequately explained, and preferably not merely hinted at.

Maybe there is some information missing that was part of the original authors intent, or maybe the statements were unreliably taken from the citation at the end of that paragraph: "Paul D. Spudis (1996). "Whence the Moon?". The Once and Future Moon. Smithsonian Institution Press. pp. 157–169. ISBN 0522848265." Hopefully someone is familiar with the book and or capable of relevant elucidation. Otherwise, the statements should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.16.91 (talk) 23:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Retrograde orbits of exoplanets
Should the outstanding issues section mention that there are objects in retrograde orbit around their host star? Seems like a huge issue, they are all suppose to be going the same direction are they not? I could not find where the accepted nebular hypothesis accounted for this.Trilliant (talk) 17:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Hot Jupiters
As well I do not see it mentioned how hot Jupiters are formed. Is this important or can it be ignored?Trilliant (talk) 17:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Additional Theory of Stellar Evolution
This page needs to include the hypothesis that stellar evolution is the process of planet formation itself, as the star is the new planet and the planet the ancient evolved star. The two were never mutually exclusive, as per all the other theories. Wavyinfinity (talk) 23:25, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Should it be such a surprise the mysteries of establishment science are being solved by outsiders? Change comes from thinking differently, it does not come from thinking the same.Wavyinfinity (talk) 23:35, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on History of Solar System formation and evolution hypotheses. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080527164707/http://metaresearch.org/ to http://www.metaresearch.org/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080208051041/http://planetquest.jpl.nasa.gov/TPF/tpf_signsOfLife.cfm to http://planetquest.jpl.nasa.gov/TPF/tpf_signsOfLife.cfm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090225084057/http://www.apl.ucl.ac.uk/iopw/uworkshop_060905.pdf to http://www.apl.ucl.ac.uk/iopw/uworkshop_060905.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:35, 4 November 2017 (UTC)