Small problem:
In the words of the great Rolf Harris…
Can you tell what it is yet?
More clues…
Jupiter: 90% hydrogen and 10% helium
Saturn: hydrogen (75%) with much smaller amounts of helium (25%)
Uranus: Uranus is a planet composed mainly of rock and ice, with much smaller amounts of gasses such as hydrogen and helium.
Neptune: The atmosphere or outermost layer is a mixture of heated gases, mainly hydrogen, helium, water and methane. The middle layer, which comprises about two-thirds of Neptune’s mass is a heterogeneous combination of water, liquid ammonia, rock and methane.
Sources:
1) Sun and earth = http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/
Hbase/tables/suncomp.html
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/jupiter/
interior/J_int_compo_overview.html
Related lwtc247’s posts:
Exploring the Origin of the Universe
A problem with the Solar System.
Why I can’t accept the evolutionists
I’m going up update this later with some paraphrases from Dr Iain Stewart about the age of the earth and the oxygen rich atmosphere, but I’m too busy right now.
Living with the Conspiracy 24-7 
Very instresting, but Stoopid! Why would scientists think the earth came from the sun? It sounds absurd. I doubt any of the planets did. The logic is horrendous. Check out my theory. I dreamt it up all by myself and I wasn’t using any drugs. Really. Just pure unadulterated imagination based upon a few assumptions learned from an astronomy class years and years ago shortly after Godzilla emerged from a volcano.
First, the entire solar system was proly just a great sea. Dust, as the scientists call pockets of water in outer space. That is just propaganda to fool people, but it is water and not dust. As everyone knows, water in cloud form does attract dust and it becomes electrically charged. But this body was more like a sea because it became our Sun. Then the Earth got much of the remaining water and dust which either became our sea or our atmosphere. Other planets got whatever waste products were left over. The Earth, in an optimal orbit around the Sun, was in a range of electomagnetic whatever because like I sed, I’m winging this. But the Earth did not come from the Sun. A large body of residual water and dust formed the Ort cloud, etc. Comets. You kno.
Okay, I admit my theory is flawed. But it sounds better than that tripe you posted. Nothing personal. Just having fun!
Thanks for offering your thoughts.
Glad the post interests you. Although I think you’ve missed the point of the post so I’m not really surprised you think it’s a wee bit stupid.
The ‘western’ belief about the formation of the sun/earth is given in this post: “A problem with the Solar System.”
It’s the same method that you propose, and it’s actually THAT proposal I’m disputing, but I don’t make any such claim about the earth coming from the sun. In fact I don’t know anyone who proposes that.
Rotation of that dust cloud (better description = H/He gas cloud) is often cited as being necessary for the formation of the universe as we see it today (revolving planets etc) but the rotation would have meant the more massive particles accumulate in the centre being more inertia bound and exerting the greater gravitational force.
The H/He is more likely to have accumulated in the periphery of that. If the gravitational collapse of this gas cloud crushed the H/He to the point where nuclei could fuse then it’s reasonable to think it would be the surrounding H/He that would be shot out into what we call the universe today.
Any heavy elements would be left behind, in the sun! It’s very unlikely the elements in the abundance we find would be on earth. And the density variation of the on earth also are heavily suggestive that the ‘western’ theory of solar system formation is very improbable.
One must look at the elements also. Where did the Al/Si/Fe/U/… all come from? The proposed condensation of mater from energy i.e. the formation of matter (called decoupling) after the big bang, is most likely to see H and He form – not least because that’s what we see today.
In order for Al/Si/Fe/U/… to form, so the theory goes: fusion must have occurred i.e. there must have been previous stars from whence the afore mentioned dust cloud came from. But then you get into the problem of time. So one star formed, lived and died, exploded left the heavy elements and then our sun formed. The time scale is highly suspect.
But there are other problems. The age of the sun is put at almost the same age of the earth.
The Universe is only 13.7 billion years old (according the best and most modern scientific analysis, WMAP) and the sun is said to half way through it’s life, and the solar system formed 4.5[a] to 7[b] billion years ago. The earth by radio dating is 4.7[c] billion years. Dr Iain Stewart (I’ll update later with a summary of his publication on the matter) says it took 2 billion years to make the oxygen on the earth.
So with regards to the exhibition of faith based belief involving the current ‘western’ model…
The time frames, the elemental composition and the hole theory itself of dust/H/He clouds forming the solar system and earth i also highly questionable.
If you asked me where did the earth come from or how the solar system came to be? I’d say I don’t know. I don’t see why however, that it couldn’t have happened via non-observable/comprehendible means, departing from the established ‘human laws’ of physics.
But I know whether via conventional Physics or otherwise, all creation came from God, brief unadulterated descriptions of which are found in the Qur’an.
And But don’t be so hard on Godzilla – he’s cute!
[a] http://ds9.ssl.berkeley.edu/solarweek/DISCUSSION/howold.html
[b] http://www.suntrek.org/sun-as-a-star/suns-vital-statistics/how-old-sun.shtml
[c] http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q1895.html
A bit closer to home (I’m lazy to make a new post)…
Earths magnetic field is weak. The change in field strength seems to affect the atmosphere, which in turn, plays a substantial effect in climate. The relationship is yet to be fully quantified.
And in the IPCC draught report I looked at the other day, doesn’t define climate change in terms of PURELY anthropogenisis. Therefore “The IPCC report determines: man made CO2 causes global warming” is a false claim. Source
Quote: “Human influence, particularly emission of greenhouse gases, has greatly increased the chance of having such warm years” – Peter Stott, UK Met Office. Source
Yes, but here, a greater chance doesn’t transcribe into the certaintly that it is happening. Global warming from CO2, despite the fact I hate the fact this statement favours the mega oil geopolitic$ we have today is highly questionable.