double-a@hush.com (Double-A) wrote in message news:<79094630.0402050043.67e95e0e@posting.google.com>...
> Jeff Relf <Me@Privacy.NET> wrote in message news:<cw1lgktk5jwj.dlg@x.Jeff.Relf>...
> > Hi Mark Martin ,
> >   Re:  Sergey Karavashkin's idea that a planet might
> >   be formed from something similar to sun spots ,
> > You comment ,
> > " With no subsequent delta-V an ejectile at 
> >     less than escape velocity will follow 
> >     a ballistic trajectory which brings it 
> >     right back into the Sun "
> > 
> > Right ,  but I think Sergey's idea was that 
> >   some stars might be spinning so fast that 
> >   a particular kind of  " sun spot "  would be 
> >   enough to reach the escape velocity .
> > 
> > Remember ,  he's suggesting that the heat and compression
> >   inside a planet or star creates a new state of matter 
> >   which is positively charged locally ,
> >   but negatively charged outside the planet or star .
> > 
> > I also think he's saying that the magnetic nature of 
> >   sunspots and the sun itself help explain how
> >   The ejected matter would then form stable orbits ,
> >   creating something like  " Quanta " ...  i.e. planets .
> >   ( But I could be wrong about that )
> > 
> > It's a very interesting idea ,
> >   but I don't know how to confirm that observationally .
> > 
> > Re:  That refinement to general and special relativity :
> >   " The laws of physics ,  including the speed of light ,
> >     are the same regardless of one's hypothetical scale .
> >     Where :
> >     _  Space ,  time ,  and heat are all scaled .
> >     _  Heat is fundamentally random mass-energy .
> >     _  It's always one's incomplete information 
> >          that causes any apparent randomness . "
> > 
> > You observe ,
> >   " It's only a refinement at long last if 
> >       it happens to pan out observationally .
> >     Does it ? "
> > 
> > Yes it does in fact ...  
> >   And I'll soon be getting my Nobel .
> >   And when I do ,
> >   I'll buy everyone here a round of drinks .
> > 
> > No ,  seriously ,  I haven't thought it through that much .
> >   but we'll know it's true if Karavashkin gets a Nobel .
> > 
> > But this is exactly the kind of thing that
> >   I like to think about .
> 
> 
> The Sun even currently shoots solar fares high above its surface. 
> Some of the particles from them even reach the Earth.  I believe
> sunspots are involved in this.

Yes, Double-A, the Sun crown is visually seen up to 54 radii of Sun,
and the Earth is 37 radii from Sun. So naturally, quite abundant flow
of Sun particles reaches not only Earth but is detected even at the
distances of Jupiter and Saturn. But it does not mean that planets can
form of these particles.

> 
> When the Sun was spinning much faster, larger volumes of ejecta may
> have been expelled, some of which might have cooled into asteroids. 
> While it is true that there initial orbits would have terminated back
> in the Sun, if many were being ejected during a time of intense
> sunspot activity, they might have interacted gravitationally with each
> other so that while some still fell back, others were modified in
> there orbits and stayed in orbit.  Eventually they have collided with
> each other to form larger more planetary like bodies.
> 
> It's possible.
> 
> Double-A


The idea of planets formed of colliding asteroids and dust belongs to
O.Yu. Schmidt (1944). This conception followed the classical theory by
Kant and Laplace. We told of this and other conceptions and their
problems in CHAPTER 1 (survey) of our large work "Some aspects of the
Earth evolution",

http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/selftrans/v3_1/contents3.html#survey1 
 
Perhaps, until you have not read our conception in its logic sequence,
CHAPTER 2. "Hypothesis of origin of planetary system" 

http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/selftrans/v3_1/contents3.html#c2a

it will be very difficult for me to explain every nicety "on fingers",
as there are many affecting parameters and diagrams. Anyway, if you
try to calculate the gravitational interaction of which you are
writing, and the more, if you try to correlate it with the internal
energy of masses that counteracts the coagulation, you will yield
dissipation of substance, in accordance with Shklovsky's condition
cited in our CHAPTER 2. I will be pleased if you think of it.

Kind regards,

Sergey