Re: Astronomy:Origin of Planets.

Date: Wed Feb 09 2000 - 20:06:09 MST

In a message dated 2/7/00 6:30:08 PM Central Standard Time, writes:

> EvMick wrote:
> > Wandering the web I found the following.
> >
> > It relates to an earlier discussion on
> > this list regarding Velikovsky. I find
> > it interesting that BBC would be so
> > brazen as to publish such a thing!!
> > Get out the pitchforks and torches!!
> Whoa, there, EvMick! You're shooting from
> the hip. You suggest that the theory in
> question is as ridiculous as Velikovsky,
> and it isn't so. Actually, this theory has
> little common with Velikovsky. Yes, it has
> the orbits of planets changing over time,
> but that's where the similarities end.

Actually I was being sarcastic....

I was also genuinely interested....

According to one of my favorite authors (J. Hogan)
In 1969, the British astronomer W.H. McCrea published a paper in Nature,
"Density of the Terrestrial Planets," Vol. 224, pp. 28-29, contending that
the inner planets could never have formed in the way that the standard
textbook accretion or tidal models describe, owing to the disruptive effect
of Jupiter. This came after R.A. Lyttleton's Man’s View of the Universe,
1961, which included a fluid dynamic analysis of Jupiter's core, showing that
with its accretion rate and rotation speed it would periodically go unstable
and shed excess mass. To my knowledge, neither of these hypotheses have been

<end quote>

To the extent that I could I backtracked R.A. Lyttleton. To my untrained
and uninformed observation he seems legit and "lettered".

Salina Ks.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:03:36 MDT