Hubble Reinforces Planet Formation Theory

eldavojohn writes "Physorg is running an interesting article on the most recent of Hubble's accomplishments. It has provided us evidence supporting that which Emmanuel Kant proposed over 200 years ago — that planets do indeed form from disks of gas and dust that surround stars. The trick, apparently, was observing many cases where a star's planet forms on the exact same circumstellar disk as the dust and gas. Hubble also aided the researchers in determining the weight of many extrasolar planets. Some had contended that these were not planets but rather brown dwarf stars — which is determined by measuring their weight." Update: 10/12 23:08 GMT by T : That's not the only theory Hubble's recent observation's have supported: read on below for a bit more.

somegeekynick writes "Hubble has spotted a bunch of little galaxies, nicknamed Spiderweb, over 10 billion light-years away in the process of merging. This observation supports the so-called 'bottom-up' theory of galaxy formation, according to which smaller clumps of matter collided and merged with each other to form larger galaxies during early stages of the universe's evolution."

Re:Mass != Weight

[cplusplus]

The article discussed mass measurements, and the word weight appears nowhere in the text. I think the submitter made a classic Physics 101 mistake, not the article.

juxtaposition != causation

[prgrmr]

from TFA:

has at last confirmed what Kant and scientists have long predicted: that planets form from debris disks around stars.

Again, "modern" scientists jumping to unsupported conclusions. Simply observing a dust cloud and a planet in the same orbital plain around the same star doesn't prove the planet formation theory. Until they find a dust cloud containing a proto-planet in the process of condensing, the theory is still unproven.

Re:juxtaposition != causation

[peragrin]

of course do you really know that the planet they found wasn't a proto planet, in the process of being formed?

The onyl way to be certian is to go visit the planet.

Now where's my hyperspace drive.

Replacement?

[From A Far Away Land]

In a move all to familiar to environmentalists in Canada [see Conservatives "green approach"], a national government has canceled a scientifically motivated project [Hubble] for which they have no replacement yet. When will governments realize that redundant-capable science projects [Internet] work better than canceling a project and leaving us blind for a measure of years?

I suppose worldly wastes just get a higher priority than figuring out how the Universe is put together, and thus learning to better manage and predict it...

Re:juxtaposition != causation

[Anonymous Coward]

Again, "modern" scientists jumping to unsupported conclusions.

Nobody did that, you just have no idea what you're talking about.

The theory had a major loophole in it because nobody had ever before been able to observe a planet formation on the same plane as it's sun's disk of dust and gas. This find goes a long way toward closing that loophole and, when combined with all prior evidence for the theory, also goes a long way to validating it's accuracy to the point of virtual certainty.

I have no idea why you felt the need to take a glib stab at "modern" scientists like that, but maybe in the future you should make sure you have at least a tiny clue what you're talking about before you make yourself look like an idiot in the process of trying to make other people appear that way.

Re:Question for the science folks out there

[Red Flayer]

This claim doesnt need backing up, its entirely obvious when you look at the orbit parameters.

Just as the sun orbits the earth, which is entirely obvious if you observe its track through the sky.

I happen to agree that it's most likely that Pluto is a captured object, but another theory out there is that Pluto formed the same as the first eight planets, but then was knocked out of a normal planetary orbit by collision with another object (like its moon).

In science, the term entirely obvious is a very bad one -- it limits the drive to seek alternate explanations, which may end up being the correct ones.

You have a competing theory?

[mmell]

And evidence to support your theory? Evidence which negates the currently accepted theory? Evidence which can be readily reproduced by scientists skeptical about your theory?

I thought not.

Not all scientists accept Kant's theories regarding planetary evolution as correct. Even the scientists who do accepts Kant's theories as correct (and they are the overwhelming majority) will be the first to admit that they are theories. That's the nature of science.

Yes, the theory is still unproven - but it is well-supported, and this data from the HST provides even more support. Scientists haven't "jumped to unsupported conclusions" - they've (quite correctly) described this data as supporting an existing theory, not as proof or evidence of a fact.

Yes, TFA describes these things as facts, rather than theory. Blame the journalists, not the scientists.