How do you know that? Have you been running planetary formation models and studying formation timescales?
Aaaand he goes for the personal attack.
Actually, I have a PhD in Planetary Science. I've worked in areas directly related to this. That's how I know.
What 'standard model' is that? There is no complete theory in planetary formation- plus, Jupiter's core is metallic hydrogen, not water.
Yes, there is a standard model. Ask any planetary scientist. I know of one dissenting view that involves an instability model, but while it's interesting, it's not widely accepted yet.
Also, Jupiter's core is more certainly not metallic hydrogen. There is a metallic hydrogen layer over the core, but there's likely (Juno will confirm this) a 10-Earth-Mass core under that. Made mostly of, yes, water ice.
(We know a bit less about Jupiter's core than the other giant planets because that metallic hydrogen has a rather unknown equation of state. The other giant planets all have 10-Earth-Mass (thereabouts) cores to a much higher level of certainty.)
If you're unaware of this, you shouldn't post with such authority.
(like, forming a big Jupiter doesn't leave enough material around for other planets, and on the same time the stellar wind keeps on blowing material away from the system).
Um, no. In every model of planet formation I've ever seen, Jupiter forms faster than any of the other planets. The very existence of the other planets puts lie to your claim. As I said, Jupiter can't magically hoover up all of the material in the entire disk. Simple energy and angular momentum considerations would tell you that that's pretty much impossible, for a start.
And THAT is what I mean by timespace.
Congrats. You've found a way to use the term to mean something that no one else in science understands.
And dust particles are neither H, nor He. Plenty of metals are around these days, even more so on star-forming regions.
Absolutely. Lots of other stuff around. Planets' worth of it. But it's much, much less abundant than the hydrogen and helium. Reaction rates will be very, very slow.
Even more simple: stuff is in dynamic balance; water that forms on some distance from the star, will be destroyed if it drifts too close into the star.
Yes and no. First of all, the proto-star isn't running that hot (check the Hiashi tracks). Secondly, it's been noted by a lot of people that the disk protects the rest of the disk. If you buried behind an AU of other disk material, not a lot of UV gets to you. Even the temperature profile of the disk has almost nothing to do with the temperature of the star. (It's got far more to do with the Virial Theorem and energy given up as material marches inward toward the protostar.)
Look, your posts are full of misinformation and poor understanding of physics and astronomy. I wouldn't mind as much if you weren't passing yourself off as an expert. Clearly, you're not. I also see from your other posts that you're prone to behave like a bit of a jerk. So I'm not going to reply further after this, feel free to get in the last word.