THE OUTER PLANETS

Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune are much larger than the inner planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars). The question is, why? I believe I have the solution to this problem. See below:

During the initial formation of our solar system, all our planets were close to the size of our inner planets.
The asteroid belt could have resulted from two counter rotating planets that collided to create the asteroid belt. This resulting collision created a lot of fragmented segments to impact on the Sun which produced giant flares that blew large quantities of gas and dust out to the regions of the outer planets. The outer planets then accreted these gases and dusts to grow in size. This process continued for billions of years and that could account for the current sizes of the outer planets.

Today, there is a comet belt between the asteroid belt and Jupiter’s orbit. These comets could be formed from asteroids that accumulate some of these gases and dusts as well.
As a result, Jupiter’s gravitational field disturbs these inner comets to cause them to impact on the Sun to be the cause of the current solar flaring activity.
This flaring continues to blow more gases and dust to the outer planets continuing their accretions and subsequently, size increases.

Why would this be so? Why would there be this equal state? Why would a couple of gigagrams of material travelling on opposite directions create this apocolypse? Seems to me that what we see today has merit because of fossil momentum. If the solar system was so chaotic like you have stated, woud there not be evidence today in the motion of the planets?

How would two planets on a collision course in the same orbit ever form in the first place?

If two planets collided with enough velocity to totally disrupt both of them, the resulting energy release would completely melt all the material making up both planets. All of the asteroids would show unmistakeable signs of having been molten at about the same time in the past. They don't, as far as I know.
There is? The only "comet belt" I've ever heard of is the Kuiper Belt way out past Pluto. I suspect that the region between the asteroid belt and Jupiter's orbit is close enough that any comets hanging around there would completely boil away in a few million years anyway.

Or, alternatively, at the distance they orbit the gas giants sweep out a far greater volume of space allow them to accrete far more material and are therefore bigger.

What is wrong with the current explanation as to the difference between the gas giants and terrestrial planets?

If you propose a new hypothesis it should explain something better than current theories. How does your new model do that? What you're doing here is creating a new hypothesis to explain another phenomenon for which you've already created an unnecessary and unsatisfactory alternate theory (comet impacts as the explanation of solar activity).

And your comet impact explanation for solar activity was being used to explain your new theory for galactic rotation and dark matter which has tremendous flaws that have been pointed out.

This is becoming a truly remarkable assemblage of theoretical epicycles.

Hasn't the idea that the early solar system was chaotic already been demonstrated? Maybe not the way suggested here, but the moon forming incident was supposedly a glancing planetary collision, at least opening the door to the possibility that there could have been others.

During the initial formation of the Solar System, all the planets were gas and dust. Turbulence in the protosolar disk caused variations in the density of the gas and dust. Areas of higher density grew by accretion. It was a race which Jupiter won. Saturn came in second, etc. Perturbations caused by Jupiter's gravity prevented the small bodies between Mars and Jupiter from accreting further and becoming a planet. 8)

__________________
Any day you wake up on "the right side of the dirt" is a good day.

T. Anderson

That's the basis of the planetesimal hypothesis. The basic explanation for the difference between the gas giants and terrestrial planets is pretty simple. The terrestrial planets formed closer to the Sun where the the Sun had swept up most of the gases. The outer planets were far enough away that there was more of the gases from the solar nebula available for collecting a large atmosphere. The reason the gas giants would get smaller with greater distances is that the solar nebula should begin to thin out as distance increases.

Everything about the chaotic nature holds within this picture. Planetesimals were still flying around, but the contortions proposed to explain the supply of comets cyrek wants for his solar flaring hypothesis, which he wants to explain his theory about galactic rotation without dark matter is a stretch.

I wonder if you realize just how big the sun is? Or how hot? It takes a lot of energy to produce a flare. I don't have the figures, but I can feel confident in saying that a large piece of rock impacting the sun is not enough energy to produce a flare!

These short period comets are not considered a "belt" as such. A comet approaching the sun close enough to Jupiter's gravity will have its trajectory altered such that it can have a new orbital path such that it stays within Jupiter's orbital distance. But they are are not necessarily in the plane of the ecleptc, and thus do not form a belt.

__________________
"As I lay beneath the Southern Cross, the stars tell more than I could" . . . David Meece

I would imagine that it was that material coalesced to form rocky bodies all over the system. Their gravity attracted atmosphere which increased the gravity to attract more atmosphere. But, the pressure of Sol was much greater in the inner system and kept on blowing away atmosphere from the inner planets so they couldn't accumulate that much material. In the quieter outer system, the solar pressure was less so there was nothing to stop runaway accumulation of gas and hence the gas giants formed.

__________________
Freedom For Fission A breath of fresh Iodine-131

If the hydrogen and helium blew out of the Sun, then the inner planets should have had the first gravitational crack at capturing it and therefore they should be the gas giants.

I did the numbers a while back--a really absolutely huge comet, bigger than any ever observed (as big as the largest Kuiper belt object other than Pluto) hitting the Sun would be about like a dust speck hitting the windshield of a Ford Mustang. Jupiter hitting the Sun would be like a 2-pound kitten hitting the Mustang. (Much worse for the kitten than the car, I'm afraid.)

All planets and suns are identical (duh having been made of the same material)

However there wasnt enough mass for jupiter to become a sun and thanks to the close proximity to the sun our outer atmosphere was stripped away by the solar radiation when the sun went 'live'.

Once upon a time the earth was a gas giant Now the earth is largely within an equilibrium about keeping its gasses.

The same couldnt be said for low mass mars.

[quote]Once upon a time the earth was a gas giant Now the earth is largely within an equilibrium about keeping its gases.

------------------
So how big was Gas Giant Earth, how long did it last? Perhaps the Big smash that created the Moon also destroyed the gas envelope?

Also, there is another theory on the creation of large gas giants- rather than accretion of a solid core, they might sometimes form from the gravitational collapse of knots of gas-
(it is mentioned in this link in passing)
http://www.onewest.net/~dollan/news002.html3

the formation of solar systems is obviously not well understood yet...
or is it just me?

__________________
Orion's Arm . The Starlark . Voices: Future Tense- Novella Contest Issue! . OA Flickr set

Don't forget also, that the temperatures in the inner region of the proplyd would tend to disfavour the aggregation of volatiles/low mass elements - difficult to pin down a lighter molecule when it's acting all frisky. The lower temperatures at a greater radius however permit the formation of ice (particularly water ice - heaps of good ol' H2O out there). Good building blocks, ice.

__________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day." - Douglas Adams

Hey im allowed to make stuff up considering no one really knows how systems form

I'm sure the ancient Earth did have a fairly thick atmosphere at one point,

and I am pretty sure that a planet somewhat more massive than the Earth at about 1AU from the Sun would have a thick, warm atmosphere;

make it big enough (2xEarth? 3xEarth?) and you would have a new type of planet, a warm sub-jovian or something similar...

until we get good images of the extra-solar planets we are just guessing.

remember how surprising the Galilean moons were when the first images came back...

__________________
Orion's Arm . The Starlark . Voices: Future Tense- Novella Contest Issue! . OA Flickr set

It does seem that as temperature decreases, the amount of methane held in by the gas giant increases (unless there's a better explanation for how the amount of methane increases from Saturn to Uranus to Neptune).

*For those reading this who do not know, the increase in methane is what gives Uranus it's blue-green hue and Neptune (with even more methane) it's blue hue.

__________________
"As I lay beneath the Southern Cross, the stars tell more than I could" . . . David Meece

To all above:

cyreks reply:

This is only a theory,
So I donot intend to argue this point.

By the way, can anyone provide the current theory (references) regarding the outer planet formations?

Then you should call it n idea or a hypothesis. A theory is something you can already argue about and find arguments supporting it.

Ok, then I guess my posts will be for everyone else.

Here is the first site that came up on a google search. You can find a lot more by googling and any introductory astronomy textbook will give you the basic picture as well.