<p>TidalWave says it perfectly:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><em>"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."</em></p>
</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><em>"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."</em> </p>
</blockquote>

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

<p><strong>You cannot justifiably criticize an accepted scientific theory without coming up with an equally plausible idea</strong> (unless you manage to <em>prove</em> 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. <em>That</em> is the scientific process.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-11-01T03:34:13.563Z
@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
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-11-01T03:39:07.067Z
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
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-11-01T16:12:12.813Z
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
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-11-01T23:12:16.273Z
@chaonomy I'm impressed you spent so much time on this! However, ideas such as this are only ever ideas until they are rigorously tested with complex mathematical models. It's this very important (and immensely difficult) middle step you missed that us to say that you didn't follow the scientific method. Research needs such manpower these days that it is virtually impossible to make a living as an academic without joining a University. Even once you have a PhD, the job market is poor and there are many more graduates than faculty positions.
Moriarty
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-11-01T23:13:06.450Z
So I would encourage you to study astronomy, but it's not easy to drop everything and switch careers once you get into grad school. In the least, there are [many good textbooks](http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Modern-Astrophysics-2nd-Edition/dp/0805304029/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1383345751&sr=8-2&keywords=astrophysics) to study and the [MIT](http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm) offers much of their course material for free online. Remember - the journey is more important than the end result, so getting a physics/astronomy degree without progressing further is *absolutely not* a pointless endeavour!
Moriarty
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-11-02T00:34:06.667Z
@Moriarty My hypothesis is only at the most rudimentary level of discussion. Before "ideas such as this are only ever ideas until they are rigorously tested with complex mathematical models" you need to be able to explain it in a format the programmer could program. I should know i am a computer programmer, i just don't know the complex mathematical requirements to test my theory against, its above my programming ability to say the least. Before that though it needs to be seen as is it even Plausible? For instance Nebular and Planetesimal Hypotheses are Plausible.
chaonomy
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-11-02T00:34:27.323Z
It is possible Nebular and Planetesimal Hypotheses are also wrong. Obviously my Hypotheses can be wrong. But is it even Plausible? That is the step I have developed it to where someone can even read it and try to understand it. Astronomers would need to agreed it Plausible before anyone would sit down and spend any time trying to mathematically model it. My problem is no one will even read it because 1. I am not an astronomer which has them wondering why I even wrote it because any Astronomer would know better. 2. It doesn't follow Nebular and Planetesimal Hypotheses.
chaonomy
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-11-02T00:35:10.700Z
Putting my overall hypothesis aside If you just look at how Comets form when I type that in Google i get directed to a variety of sites that all say they are from the formation of the Solar System. Isn't it plausible (and/or possible) that a Comet could originate from outside the Solar System and if it passes the Sun with the right trajectory gets vectored into a highly elliptical Kepler Orbit. That would be an alternative Hypothesis. Does that really require me to become an Astronomer to pose that Hypothesis to the Astronomy Community? It seems inefficient?
chaonomy
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-11-02T00:36:28.190Z
Isn't part of the function of this site to allow Astronmers to evaluate questions and if they see one that may explain a portion of Astronomy as yet undiscovered allow them to elevate it to the next level of discussion. I am not looking to become an Astronomer or get the credit. To me it just seems like this is how the Solar System works and it might be beneficial if some Astronomers discussed it to discern if it might be plausible. The last thing I am trying to do is waste anyone's time especially people who clearly are highly educated such as an Astronomer.
chaonomy
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-11-02T01:45:18.543Z
@chaonomy These days, astronomers pretty much are just programmers! Admittedly I find some of the theories hard to believe and a bit difficult to follow, but as astromax said we're always inclined to rebel against something that goes against the status quo! For instance, you don't explain where the comets come from. Given that current theories of cometary formation are not compatible with your planetary system evolution ideas, you must offer an alternate explanation for their origin.
Moriarty
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-11-02T01:45:33.140Z
let us [continue this discussion in chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/11321/discussion-between-moriarty-and-chaonomy)
Moriarty
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-10-28T02:57:03.553Z
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
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-10-28T03:00:41.713Z
http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/656/long-term-development-of-comets <- This question was an attempt to explain the beginning of my Theory. Can a comet originate from outside our Solar System and if it passes by the Sun with the correct trajectory have its vector altered into an highly elliptical Kepler orbit by Newton's first law of motion mechanics. If so that would explain step 1 how Comets originate.
chaonomy
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-10-28T05:28:58.893Z
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
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-10-28T18:21:58.413Z
Thanks, I published the original content on a website http://planetary-evolution.com The peer review process seems to be eluding me though. If asking people to review it is considered and insult "

    "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." what is the procedure to get it reviewed?
chaonomy
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-10-29T02:08:35.293Z
Frankly there is no chance of your website content being published in The Astrophysical Journal or MNRAS (that's publishing: submitting your research to a reputable journal, who appoints well-qualified referee(s) to review it). It's not the asking of an academic's opinion that is construed as an insult, it's the suggestion that your pseudoscience is equivalent in quality to their research. I hope that doesn't sound rude, it's just the honest truth. The best advice I can give you is to study astrophysics at a university. Get into grad school and do research under the supervision of a professor.
Moriarty
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-10-28T02:00:55.307Z
2013-10-28T02:12:26.463Z
2013-10-28T02:12:26.463Z
Moriarty
<p>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.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-11-01T18:30:30.367Z
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
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-11-01T19:26:48.230Z
In questions of Science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual - Galileo
chaonomy
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-10-27T22:06:59.093Z
What is the question? So far, all I can think of as an answer is explaining the meaning of [scientific theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory) as an integral part of the [scientific method](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-10-27T23:20:25.137Z
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
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-10-28T01:44:54.097Z
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
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-10-28T01:47:06.577Z
Also, your last sentence is hogwash... People will discover this information despite (or in spite of) whatever the prevalent theory may be.
Larian LeQuella
<the-moon><planet><comets>
Is it possible the Nebular Hypothesis and Planetesimal Theory are not correct?
chaonomy
# Is it possible the Nebular Hypothesis and Planetesimal Theory are not correct?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2013-10-27)

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.

**Tags:** the-moon, planet, comets

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: What is the question? So far, all I can think of as an answer is explaining the meaning of [scientific theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory) as an integral part of the [scientific method](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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`.  
> **username_0**: 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.  
> **username_2**: 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.  
> **username_2**: Also, your last sentence is hogwash... People will discover this information despite (or in spite of) whatever the prevalent theory may be.  
> **username_0**: 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 username_2 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. –  username_2 Oct 28 at 1:47" - The question is will those **people** be astronomers?  
> **username_0**: In questions of Science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual - Galileo  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2013-10-28. Score: 5 | Accepted answer

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.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: 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?  
> **username_0**: http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/656/long-term-development-of-comets <- This question was an attempt to explain the beginning of my Theory. Can a comet originate from outside our Solar System and if it passes by the Sun with the correct trajectory have its vector altered into an highly elliptical Kepler orbit by Newton's first law of motion mechanics. If so that would explain step 1 how Comets originate.  
> **username_3**: 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.  
> **username_0**: Thanks, I published the original content on a website http://planetary-evolution.com The peer review process seems to be eluding me though. If asking people to review it is considered and insult "      "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." what is the procedure to get it reviewed?  
> **username_3**: Frankly there is no chance of your website content being published in The Astrophysical Journal or MNRAS (that's publishing: submitting your research to a reputable journal, who appoints well-qualified referee(s) to review it). It's not the asking of an academic's opinion that is construed as an insult, it's the suggestion that your pseudoscience is equivalent in quality to their research. I hope that doesn't sound rude, it's just the honest truth. The best advice I can give you is to study astrophysics at a university. Get into grad school and do research under the supervision of a professor.  
> **username_4**: @username_0 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.  
> **username_4**: 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.  
> **username_0**: 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 username_3's suggestions they allowed me to see where I was wrong.  
> **username_3**: @username_0 I'm impressed you spent so much time on this! However, ideas such as this are only ever ideas until they are rigorously tested with complex mathematical models. It's this very important (and immensely difficult) middle step you missed that us to say that you didn't follow the scientific method. Research needs such manpower these days that it is virtually impossible to make a living as an academic without joining a University. Even once you have a PhD, the job market is poor and there are many more graduates than faculty positions.  
> **username_3**: So I would encourage you to study astronomy, but it's not easy to drop everything and switch careers once you get into grad school. In the least, there are [many good textbooks](http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Modern-Astrophysics-2nd-Edition/dp/0805304029/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1383345751&sr=8-2&keywords=astrophysics) to study and the [MIT](http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm) offers much of their course material for free online. Remember - the journey is more important than the end result, so getting a physics/astronomy degree without progressing further is *absolutely not* a pointless endeavour!  
> **username_0**: @username_3 My hypothesis is only at the most rudimentary level of discussion. Before "ideas such as this are only ever ideas until they are rigorously tested with complex mathematical models" you need to be able to explain it in a format the programmer could program. I should know i am a computer programmer, i just don't know the complex mathematical requirements to test my theory against, its above my programming ability to say the least. Before that though it needs to be seen as is it even Plausible? For instance Nebular and Planetesimal Hypotheses are Plausible.  
> **username_0**: It is possible Nebular and Planetesimal Hypotheses are also wrong. Obviously my Hypotheses can be wrong. But is it even Plausible? That is the step I have developed it to where someone can even read it and try to understand it. Astronomers would need to agreed it Plausible before anyone would sit down and spend any time trying to mathematically model it. My problem is no one will even read it because 1. I am not an astronomer which has them wondering why I even wrote it because any Astronomer would know better. 2. It doesn't follow Nebular and Planetesimal Hypotheses.  
> **username_0**: Putting my overall hypothesis aside If you just look at how Comets form when I type that in Google i get directed to a variety of sites that all say they are from the formation of the Solar System. Isn't it plausible (and/or possible) that a Comet could originate from outside the Solar System and if it passes the Sun with the right trajectory gets vectored into a highly elliptical Kepler Orbit. That would be an alternative Hypothesis. Does that really require me to become an Astronomer to pose that Hypothesis to the Astronomy Community? It seems inefficient?  
> **username_0**: Isn't part of the function of this site to allow Astronmers to evaluate questions and if they see one that may explain a portion of Astronomy as yet undiscovered allow them to elevate it to the next level of discussion. I am not looking to become an Astronomer or get the credit. To me it just seems like this is how the Solar System works and it might be beneficial if some Astronomers discussed it to discern if it might be plausible. The last thing I am trying to do is waste anyone's time especially people who clearly are highly educated such as an Astronomer.  
> **username_3**: @username_0 These days, astronomers pretty much are just programmers! Admittedly I find some of the theories hard to believe and a bit difficult to follow, but as username_4 said we're always inclined to rebel against something that goes against the status quo! For instance, you don't explain where the comets come from. Given that current theories of cometary formation are not compatible with your planetary system evolution ideas, you must offer an alternate explanation for their origin.  
> **username_3**: let us [continue this discussion in chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/11321/discussion-between-moriarty-and-username_0)  

---

