# Is it possible the Nebular Hypothesis and Planetesimal Theory are not correct? [closed]

For almost 3 centuries now the Nebular Hypothesis and Planetesimal Theory have become the preeminent explanations for how the Solar System and Planets evolved. Yet there is still no explanation for how Comets and Moons occur in the Solar System, and the Planetary explanation is still considered Theory. Is it possible that they are not correct? Yet since they hold such wide acceptance are actually preventing the discovery of how Comets, Moons, and Planets originate in a Solar System in an all inclusive explanation.

-

## closed as primarily opinion-based by TildalWave, UV-D, Francesco Montesano, MBR, Donald.McLean♦Oct 28 '13 at 11:45

Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

What is the question? So far, all I can think of as an answer is explaining the meaning of scientific theory as an integral part of the scientific method. Of course it is possible it is not correct, science doesn't function on dogmatism. Theories are frequently corrected, expanded, or even completely dismissed. Having a status of the most accepted theory often means it's just the second best thing to the one that'll withstand the trial of reality better. Theory != Axiom. – TildalWave Oct 27 '13 at 22:06
The reason I ask the question - Is it possible the Nebular Hypothesis and Planetesimal Theory are not correct? is because I can explain how all the Comets, Planets and Moons originate and evolve in this Solar System using Newton's first law of Motion Mechanics and Kepler Orbits. When I ask Senior Astronomers in the U.S. who specialize in Planetary Evolution to review the concept, they personally insult me for even asking rather than employ any scientific theory or scientific methods to evaluate it. So i was interested what the opinion of others is on the subject matter. – chaonomy Oct 27 '13 at 23:20
I will echo TidalWave's comment and say you don't seem to understand science and the scientific word theory. Also, just because it was first proposed in 1732, doesn't mean it was accepted back then. It really wasn't until the 1980s that work showed this as better than any other competing theories. Much like understanding DNA has given credibility to evolution in the past 40 years. – Larian LeQuella Oct 28 '13 at 1:44
Also, your last sentence is hogwash... People will discover this information despite (or in spite of) whatever the prevalent theory may be. – Larian LeQuella Oct 28 '13 at 1:47
I think they answered my question. Yes it is possible the Nebular Hypothesis and Planetesimal Theories are not correct. Since I am not an astronomer though, according to all the people the people who responded here as well as other astronomers I have asked, I am not qualified to comment on the subject matter. I think Larian LeQuella summed it up the best "your last sentence is hogwash... People will discover this information despite (or in spite of) whatever the prevalent theory may be. – Larian LeQuella Oct 28 at 1:47" - The question is will those people be astronomers? – chaonomy Nov 1 '13 at 18:30

TidalWave says it perfectly:

"What is the question? So far, all I can think of as an answer is explaining the meaning of scientific theory as an integral part of the scientific method. Of course it is possible it is not correct, science doesn't function on dogmatism. Theories are frequently corrected, expanded, or even completely dismissed. Having a status of the most accepted theory often means it's just the second best thing to the one that'll withstand the trial of reality better. Theory != Axiom."

The nebular hypothesis is simply the best model that fits our observations - that's how the scientific method works. In the last decade, we have been discovering and analysing increasing numbers of planetary and protoplanetary systems. Our models of the formation of these systems are continually refined as both our observations improve and our computing power increases.

"When I ask Senior Astronomers in the U.S. who specialize in Planetary Evolution to review the concept, they personally insult me for even asking rather than employ any scientific theory or scientific methods to evaluate it."

You're insulting them, by asking them to justify why the work they base their livelihood upon isn't a load of rubbish.

You cannot justifiably criticize an accepted scientific theory without coming up with an equally plausible idea (unless you manage to prove that something is wrong). And unless someone does come up with a better idea, the nebular theory will continue to expand and evolve to better match our observations. That is the scientific process.

-
Thanks I thought I was trying to help I had no idea i was insulting people as well. "And unless someone does come up with a better idea" So if I think i have a better idea and I think the Nebular Hypothesis has a flaw or can be proven wrong since it cannot explain how the Comets and Moons originate in our Solar System how would someone like myself who lacks a proper understanding of the scientific process proceed without offending people? – chaonomy Oct 28 '13 at 2:57
The take-home idea is that the nebular hypothesis does not preclude the formation of moons and comets. How these bodies come about is the result of the very complex and chaotic dynamics of accretion disks, which are indeed not fully understood. This is a well-known deficiency, but it doesn't mean we're wrong. We're just not 100% right. Until you produce some original, published, and peer-reviewed research then there is little "proceeding" to be done. – Moriarty Oct 28 '13 at 5:28
@chaonomy I think many people may appear to dismiss your ideas because it doesn't seem like you've necessarily thought things through completely. I don't think you should be ridiculed for your ideas, but you have to realize that there is an absolutely enormous amount of time and effort put forth by many very smart people to come up with these types of theories. When you come along with ideas which have not been tested or thought through completely, you've essentially refused to take part of the scientific process. – astromax Nov 1 '13 at 3:34
At this point you've come off as being too lazy to read what others have already thought through, and more importantly what they have tested. The peer review process is a sort of checks and balances system, and is the process one must go through to make ideas into something more. The one thing I do sort of agree with you on is that people tend to be more supportive of their theories than they should be. I don't blame them, since their careers are largely based upon their success. But we all make assumptions/approximations in our fields, and it's important not to get too attached. – astromax Nov 1 '13 at 3:39
I get it. I made my mistake years ago when I first came up with this Hypothesis. Rather than spending the time to further develop it I should have enrolled in an accredited Astronomy program where I would have been trained in the proper methods for researching it. I spent an additional two years leaning HTML and Illustrator so i could put it in a format that others could help me review it as part of the scientific process, not avoid it. I realize now that was the wrong way to go about it. I appreciate your's and Moriarty's suggestions they allowed me to see where I was wrong. – chaonomy Nov 1 '13 at 16:12