Leading Theory For How The Solar System Formed Just Disproved! (Synopsis)

With this new model including an additional outer giant, is it possible the body wasn't ejected but instead put into a highly elliptical orbit with the Anunnaki who lived there asking the Zeta Reticuli Greys to warn humans about the possible cataclysm associated with Nibiru Perihelion?

Sounds like a serious cosmological problem.

I’m assuming the “Nice Model” that was disproved was the latest consensus model, which replaced other models which had been disproven, or at least shown to be less satisfactory than “Nice.”

Yikes!

Yikes!

You're right, clearly science is in trouble, the leading theory keeps changing. Its like we're learning more instead of reading the answer out of an old book and being satisfied with that forevermore. Obviously with Nice being overturned, the only rational explanation is Intelligent Design of the entire solar system (nay, universe!) less than 10,000 years ago and the special creation of species.

Eric,
'learning more instead of reading the answer out of an old book'??? You sound like a teenager with no concept of history saying silly things like that.

You really have no idea what is going on either, so please put a serious lid on your smug snark. People with axes to grind make for very poor science, and are usually wrong.

@CFT #4: As a new commenter on this blog, you may not be aware of See Noknowledge's past history. A highly demonstrative YEC and science denier, SN's comments are deserving of nothing but snark, especially by commenters (such as "eric") who are generally thoughtful and responsive to actual questions.

I highly encourage you to wait around a while, and then make a similar suggestion to Wow when he chimes in. His response will do your tender heart good!

"You really have no idea what is going on either, so please put a serious lid on your smug snark. "

Read up on what Non-sequitur is and realise your comment and asinine accusation there is exactly that, so please put a serious lid on your arrogance and butthurt and let the grown ups talk.

Thanks for the support guys. CFT - my apologies; my comment was something of an "in joke" and in hindsight could easily have been misinterpreted by lurkers unfamiliar with See Noevo. His name stands for "see no evolution."

I would also point out, CFT, that the clue that sn is not to be taken seriously is in his post: his comment implies that the fact scientists constantly examine new information and decide theories must sometimes be revamped, or discarded, is a sign that science is always wrong.
You should also know he has stated the belief that nobody should spend time or money studying anything that does not have an immediate application.

To CFT:

Lest you get the wrong impression from others’ description of me, namely, Michael Kelsey calling me a “science denier” and dean saying I think “science is always wrong”,
both are lies.

And dean’s last line – “You should also know [See Noevo] has stated the belief that nobody should spend time or money studying anything that does not have an immediate application” – is a distortion, if not an outright lie.
Here’s some history, in case you’re interested:
::::::::::::::::::::
I’ll call this “dean’s distorted obsession”:

In February 2015, on http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2015/02/03/cosmology-in-the-21s…
I wrote:
“Eric #16 says “…we continue to use the best available explanations for phenomena to guide our studies and help us make decisions, untill better explanations come along.”
His citing of “help us make decisions” brought to mind two questions:
First
“Help us make decisions” about what? Are these decisions that will have any practical impact our daily lives?
Second
Related to the First, what is the purpose of MODERN cosmology?
OLD cosmology, even ancient cosmology, at least had practical benefits for navigation and tide and temperature predictions.
But what’s the purpose of modern cosmology?

I don’t buy the argument that it’s just to learn.

**Nobody advocates, or should advocate, spending untold man-years and billions of dollars just to learn more about something that has no impact on our daily lives.**

Whatever could be the purpose?”
……………..
Those above **words** would live in infamy, the infamy of dean’s brain. If he spewed about them once he must have spewed about them half a dozen times.

Finally, in April, on http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2015/04/18/comments-of-the-week…
I addressed dean’s obsession, and wrote:

“You appear to have better records than me of my comments on these blogs. Would you please provide the link to the blog from which you say you’re quoting me? I’d like to see the full quote and context.
I THINK it was about the $13 billion scientists have spent at the CERN to find the Higgs Boson. I think all significant expenditures of time and money – in science and out – warrant cost-benefit analysis. And I question the LEVEL of expenditures for a SPECIFIC result (i.e. finding a Higgs Boson) which has no known applicable benefit in the foreseeable future.

I am not against general research (i.e. research with no specified result or benefit foreseen), per se. However, expenditures for such general research must be weighed against the multitude of other expenditures desired. I worked for 25 years for major companies which spent millions on general research, along with greater millions on “applied” research.

Bottom-line, I think your statement that “sn’s position is that funding should NEVER go where there is no immediate, clearly applicable, described result” is FALSE.”

I further wrote that:
“I stand by my comment. General learning and exploration is one thing. Earlier I noted I’m OK with general or basic research, provided it’s properly prioritized with more urgent, applied research.

But you’ll note that the context of the quote was in a discussion of MODERN cosmology. And I think much of modern cosmology is bordering on, if not completely engulfed in, science fiction (e.g. multiverse theory).
I asked :“Whatever could be the purpose [of, say, promoting multiverse theory]?” A Sinisa Lazarek later responded: “… [modern cosmology] showed us that there is nothing “godly” out there…”

And I responded: “I think you’re getting warmer.””
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

A submitted comment of mine is “awaiting moderation”, so I’ve made some edits to see if this one gets through:

To CFT:

Lest you get the wrong impression from others’ description of me, namely, Michael Kelsey calling me a “science denier” and dean saying I think “science is always wrong”,
both are statements are false.

And dean’s last line – “You should also know [See Noevo] has stated the belief that nobody should spend time or money studying anything that does not have an immediate application” – is a distortion, if not an outright falsehood. (If you’re interested in the history, I’ll supply it.)

"Lest you get the wrong impression from others’ description of me, namely, Michael Kelsey calling me a “science denier” and dean saying I think “science is always wrong”,
both are statements are false."

And by false, see nowt means "unfortunately accurate".

"And dean’s last line – “You should also know [See Noevo] has stated the belief that nobody should spend time or money studying anything that does not have an immediate application” – is a distortion, if not an outright falsehood. "

By which See nowt means "so well documented and verified as the case that even I can't pretend it's definitely wrong".

To Wow #11:

Me: “And dean’s last line – “You should also know [See Noevo] has stated the belief that nobody should spend time or money studying anything that does not have an immediate application” – is a distortion, if not an outright falsehood. ”

You: “By which See nowt means “so well documented and verified as the case that even I can’t pretend it’s definitely wrong”.”

Here’s what I have documented. Feel free to verify.
I’ll call this “dean’s distorted obsession.”

In February 2015, on Ethan’s “Cosmology in the 21st Century (Synopsis)”, I wrote:
“Eric #16 says “…we continue to use the best available explanations for phenomena to guide our studies and help us make decisions, untill better explanations come along.”
His citing of “help us make decisions” brought to mind two questions:
First
“Help us make decisions” about what? Are these decisions that will have any practical impact our daily lives?
Second
Related to the First, what is the purpose of MODERN cosmology?
OLD cosmology, even ancient cosmology, at least had practical benefits for navigation and tide and temperature predictions.
But what’s the purpose of modern cosmology?
I don’t buy the argument that it’s just to learn.
**Nobody advocates, or should advocate, spending untold man-years and billions of dollars just to learn more about something that has no impact on our daily lives.**
Whatever could be the purpose?”
……………..
Those above **words** would live in infamy, the infamy of dean’s brain. If he spewed about them once he must have spewed about them half a dozen times.

Finally, in April, on Ethan’s “Comments of the Week #56: From dark energy’s existence to fine-tuning”, I addressed dean’s obsession, and wrote:
“You appear to have better records than me of my comments on these blogs. Would you please provide the link to the blog from which you say you’re quoting me? I’d like to see the full quote and context.
I THINK it was about the $13 billion scientists have spent at the CERN to find the Higgs Boson. I think all significant expenditures of time and money – in science and out – warrant cost-benefit analysis. And I question the LEVEL of expenditures for a SPECIFIC result (i.e. finding a Higgs Boson) which has no known applicable benefit in the foreseeable future.
I am not against general research (i.e. research with no specified result or benefit foreseen), per se. However, expenditures for such general research must be weighed against the multitude of other expenditures desired. I worked for 25 years for major companies which spent millions on general research, along with greater millions on “applied” research.
Bottom-line, I think your statement that “sn’s position is that funding should NEVER go where there is no immediate, clearly applicable, described result” is FALSE.”
I further wrote that:
“I stand by my comment. General learning and exploration is one thing. Earlier I noted I’m OK with general or basic research, provided it’s properly prioritized with more urgent, applied research.
But you’ll note that the context of the quote was in a discussion of MODERN cosmology. And I think much of modern cosmology is bordering on, if not completely engulfed in, science fiction (e.g. multiverse theory). I asked :“Whatever could be the purpose [of, say, promoting multiverse theory]?” A Sinisa Lazarek later responded: “… [modern cosmology] showed us that there is nothing “godly” out there…”
And I responded: “I think you’re getting warmer.””

Michael,
I was so charmed and entertained I just had to respond.

I'm actually not a 'new' commenter...and my heart isn't very tender, as it tends to harden like diamond around authoritative half baked assertions. I would point out your very use of a term like 'science denier' to describe someone who does not agree with you for whatever reason is as vulgar as calling them an infidel. 'Denier' is a term used by a true believer or zealot in a matter of faith or religious inquisition, and is completely inappropriate coming out of the mouth of a scientist. The correct term for someone with doubts about a position or claim of any kind is a skeptic, and I'm quite glad to be one of them. Skepticism is an essential part of science, the ecosphere, and general sanity, as without it the bullshit produced by educated experts with science degrees alone would overwhelm the atmosphere with methane and bury the surface deeper than the Huronian glaciation!
if you are offended skepticism or those that question and challenge your assertions, you are truly in the wrong line of work and should consider work in a field of absolute certainty, such as politics or despotism for instance. Any issue or claim of science is never above being skeptically questioned and challenged, especially when it is funded with taxpayer money... as the NOAA and the EPA are just beginning to learn to their great delight.

As to being schooled by a clever but conceited bully like Lubos... ;o) I really don't think so. Since I don't subscribe to the pseudo-science of superstrings and I really don't need any lessons in fourth grade potty language, there isn't much he has to teach me. So far as I know, his most memorable contribution to science has been that he served as the obnoxious and socially inept archtype for the physicist Sheldon Cooper on the Big Bang sitcom.

If he is the kind of person you think of as 'thoughtful and responsive' and would consider him capable of educating anyone in how to do anything but tick people off... I would question whether you were joking or high.

Wow,
Thank you so much for 'chiming in'.
I finally figured out why Ethan tolerates your bad behavior. Freedom of speech and toleration has nothing to do with it. He gives you free reign because he knows your name and who you are. First: Congrats! You're infamous and bring in web traffic, Second: It's out of academic professional courtesy and more than just a little bit of 'Good Ol boy' sympathy with your abusive contempt for the great unwashed masses of ignorant humanity.

As for your comments, such as they were,

'butthurt'?? Seriously, 'butthurt'...am I supposed to say ouch or something?? what, are you ten years old? Moving on...'let the grown ups talk'???? Really? You actually consider yourself a 'grown up'? Hearing this from you is....deeply ironic, kind of disturbing, yet somehow actually quite funny. If I recall, 'Wow', you lost your job once over your inability to moderate your own 'grown up' voice at a certain university. Am I wrong? Please correct me If I am. I actually do read your blog and I know who you are quite well as your insults and hubris are quite distinctive: you have very little creativity or self control when it comes to invective. Despite actually agreeing with you on numerous topics, I find your arrogance ALWAYS outshines your argument by several orders of magnitude. Yes, you know some overly complicated math in a highly esoteric field, but so what? No, you don't know everything else, and ... Like many clever people who play with mathematical abstractions too much, you get lost as you hypostatize your systems of calculation into reality like a drunken Platonist naming the shadows on the cave wall. Kepler had his divine solids and mystical geometry, Newton had his alchemy and nervous breakdowns, and you have your unphysical reified super strings and a lost needle in the landscape problem bigger than the very universe you are looking for an actual description of. Good luck with that one sweetie, you are going to need it. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

See Noevo,
People who mock another's name fall very quickly in my eyes.
Those who tell me how to think, who to like, or what to feel fall faster yet.
Folks who continue to confuse their titles with the strength of their arguments don't fall, but only because they have no standing at all.

I actually haven't read up on your views yet, but when I do, rest assured I will be coming to my own conclusions. Hopefully we will disagree on something interesting, as total agreement on any topic makes for little discussion, nothing learned, and lots of boredom.

By any chance have you noticed that there is an incredibly strong correlation between political leanings and beliefs, and attitudes about how science should be considered, used and funded? I am beginning to suspect this is the five hundred pound gorilla in the room everyone keeps dancing around while they pretend it isn't there.

.

"To Wow #11:"

Boo hoo. Your idiotic creationist idiocy isn't being dealt with the respect and hallowedness that you're used to in your bible group meetings.

AAaaaaaawwwww.

Sorry, bud, we prefer to deal with reality, not comforting fantasy.

"‘butthurt’?? Seriously, ‘butthurt’"

Yup.

More evidence of how butthurt you are over this.

"If I recall, ‘Wow’, you lost your job once over your inability to moderate your own ‘grown up’ voice at a certain university. Am I wrong?"

10000% wrong, shithead.

Just like you are on everything else you've blathered about here.

However, CFT, not the moronic, nay, fatuously RIDICULOUS claim out of his own arsehole that See Nowt pulled up.

Absolutely NO FUCKING IDEA who I am.

But writes "If I recall correctly..." and makes up a whole pile of puke.

Especially after his whinging and moaning about how he's been maligned by being asserted as having said something that even it thinks can be called only a distortion, this should 100% tell you what sort of malign lunatic See Nowt is.

"I am beginning to suspect this is the five hundred pound gorilla in the room everyone keeps dancing around while they pretend it isn’t there."

It's pretty hard to see it there when even you, who proclaim its existence, cannot manage to do more than allude to its existence...

SPEAK UP, MAN.

If you keep weaselling your way to insinuation of claim, you will show yourself to be more weasel than man.

ONE unreplicated simulation is enough, these days?

Seems to me that scientists should be very careful about the distinction of a Hypothesis and Thesis.

A sure way to insanity in the face of daily discoveries of new planetary systems is to insist on the truth of a 'theory of planetary formation'. Such a theory would have to account for the history of those systems, as well as our own, something that we apparently remain ignorant.

Since the story of the formation of our solar system remains in flux, it's proper to call the 'Nice Theory' the 'Nice Hypothesis': an interesting idea, maybe true, maybe not, but with incomplete, and, as recently discovered, flawed evidence.

Evolution is a Theory, Nice, and its competitors, are not.

Read 'Theory' for 'Thesis'.

"Seems to me that scientists should be very careful about the distinction of a Hypothesis and Thesis. "

Yeah, right. Someone going by the handle of Noah's Arc is really going to have a revelation for the entirety of science...

Seems, hmm? HOW does it seem that way? Do tell.

"A sure way to insanity in the face of daily discoveries of new planetary systems is to insist on the truth of a ‘theory of planetary formation’. "

Given that you put theory of planetary formation in quote marks but NOT insist on the truth rather indicates that the problem isn't what the scientists are saying, but what words you're inserting on their behalf.

"Since the story of the formation of our solar system remains in flux, it’s proper to call the ‘Nice Theory’ the ‘Nice Hypothesis’"

Nope, theory is fine.

Hypothesis: the idea. Investigation leads to reformation: Synthesis. And when the hypothesis is supported by a large body of evidence with clear descriptive power, it is thesis (a theory).

Just because a theory is disproved doesn't mean it was never a theory.

ESPECIALLY if it's because you don't clearly understand the distinction between hypothesis (idea before testing) and theory (idea confirmed by testing). That further testing may find disproof isn't why it isn't a theory, IT IS WHY SCIENCE IS SELF CORRECTING. Unlike religion, where you're looking for whatever evidence proves your faith correct, not looking to see if your faith is wrong.

I think the one who needs to be clear on the difference between (guess or idea) hypothesis and theory (thesis) is you.

To CFT #15:

“By any chance have you noticed that there is an incredibly strong correlation between political leanings and beliefs, and attitudes about how science should be considered, used and funded? I am beginning to suspect this is the five hundred pound gorilla in the room everyone keeps dancing around while they pretend it isn’t there.”

I’ve suspected such for a very long time.
For example, a liberal or atheist will almost invariably believe in anthropogenic global warming, and more importantly, believe the government needs to whip us into shape to stop AGW. And liberal/atheist belief in AGW goes arm-in-arm with belief in evolution (biological AND cosmological).

Further, I’d bet an increasing acceptance of AGW and evolution(s) is positively correlated with the increasing acceptance of, or increasing incidence of,
– ABORTION,
– contraception,
– population decline,
– fornication,
– divorce,
– extended or perpetual singlehood,
– out-of-wedlock births,
– homosexual lifestyle and gay marriage,
– sexually-transmitted diseases,
– pornography,
– drug addiction,
– depression and dysphoria,
– social isolation/disintegration of community,
– socialistic government programs
– *aversion to pro football*

I hypothesized this a while ago. e.g.
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2015/07/27/when-the-antiabortion-move…

As I (and essentially every sane person) repeatedly point out to sn, the issues of "belief" in evolution, climate change, etc., has nothing to do with atheism or any of his other fake "isms", it has to do with whether you understand the scientific method. He doesn't, and has demonstrated no willingness to study the issues. Notice he doesn't even understand the difference between the usage of evolution in biology and evolution in cosmology.

His other items - the "positively correlated" things - are simply the results of his anti-science rants. (Aversion to pro football? Really?)

sn can object all he wishes: he has a long history of denying the validity of every modern scientific theory. he has stated that without the guidance of Catholic thought physics is lost.
You can make up your own mind, but people who understand modern science, statistics (he fails at that as well), etc., there is only one conclusion: he is a denialist, not a thinker.

"Further, I’d bet an increasing acceptance of AGW and evolution(s) is positively correlated with the increasing acceptance of, or increasing incidence of,"

Dogs and cats living together.
People losing those little raffia things that they just put down a moment ago.
Unforseen eggs.
Chocolate bars being slightly smaller than you remember them.

See nowt is just a retard.

Plain and simple.

"For example, a liberal or atheist will almost invariably believe in anthropogenic global warming"

So rationality in one area leads to rationality in other areas?

Hmmm. Interesting.

But still we know nothing about this gorilla than people can see it, even if they don't know what it looks like, and that it has a weight problem.

It may be a christian fundamentalist....

CFT:

‘Denier’ is a term used by a true believer or zealot in a matter of faith or religious inquisition, and is completely inappropriate coming out of the mouth of a scientist.

See Noevo is a young earth creationist. He's a zealot in a matter of faith, specifically biblical creationism. He is probably skeptical about a lot of other things, but he seems to fit your definition in the case of evolution. But don't take the skeptic vs. zealot opinion from me, simply read his list. Decide for yourself whether opposition to things like someone being single and 'not liking pro football' are indicators of a rational skeptic or ideological fanatic. I've talked to a lot of skeptics. Not one of them thought ones' personal preference for or against various sports had anything to do with skepticism. How about you?

See Noevo:

“Eric #16 says “…we continue to use the best available explanations for phenomena to guide our studies and help us make decisions, untill better explanations come along.” His citing of “help us make decisions” brought to mind two questions:
First
“Help us make decisions” about what? Are these decisions that will have any practical impact our daily lives?

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Evolution helps us make decisions about how to design next year's flu vaccine - something with a very practical impact on our daily lives. It also helps us decide which archaeological digs to fund, which proposals have the most likely chance of success and which may lead to the most interesting results. That does not have any immediate or practical value. IMO basic research is critically important, however, to long term human success because it is the engine that drives applied research. It is the "seed corn" that you plant, and 50-100 years later, it sprouts. Sure you could eat it (use the money for immediately practical things) instead; but then you're not going to have what it produces down the road.

Not this again.

– population decline
[...]
– extended or perpetual singlehood
[...]
– social isolation/disintegration of community

Never once has S.N. responded to the question whether he is in fact a childless blowhard whose misogyny either springs from or is the cause of an utter lack of female companionship, leading to golf and making a repetitive fool of himself online as Totally Not Social Isolation.

“Help us make decisions” about what? Are these decisions that will have any practical impact our daily lives?

Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

One might note that S.N. is here cutting and pasting from himself.

Oh, rats, I forgot one thing:

– population decline

This is S.N. code for "threat to my hegemonic fantasy life." I don't recall his ever Real Manning it up to cop to trying to obscure the source.

Ethan please hire a moderator. These off-topic downward spiraling topics make me loose interest in the forum and as such also in cosmology and science in general.

It used to be fun to come here and learn something ... those days are fading. Honestly I can't recommend anyone anymore to visit this place, this might very well be my last visit.

Seriously a debate over 'population decline' under an article about the solar system.

Rock bottom.

@wow
"Yeah, right. Someone going by the handle of Noah’s Arc is really going to have a revelation for the entirety of science…
Seems, hmm? HOW does it seem that way? Do tell."

How does it seem? Seems you're an arrogant asshole. I have no interest in Creationism, ID, etc. I do have, and have always had, an abiding interest and respect for all things scientific.

Virtually every week, more jaw-dropping evidence, more un-explained, more bizarre configurations are unveiled by exoplanetary scientists. Besides just trying to comprehend new systems, explaining how planets came about, the evolution of our own solar system, will take generations. I don't think we have a sufficient body of evidence, nor the technology to examine such planets it detail.

My point is that many ideas (and by that I mean ideas that pass scientific muster) posited as theories are, in fact, even given best evidence, are just pretty good guesses. The Nice Theory fills the bill: new data is found, it seems plausible, but the evidence is incomplete, basic processes regarding planetary formation are poorly understood (how do grains of dust clump? how do planetoids stick together with all the cosmic billiards going on?), and the theory fails. And in this case, it wasn't even new evidence, but updated modeling that sank this ship.

I have, since the 60's, read about at least 5 or 6 theories of how the solar system was formed. In a golden age of astronomical discovery, every decade brings forth another "theory". And each one has gone down the toilet. While this is natural - the job of scientists, after all is to give coherent explaination for natural phenomena - these speculations should not be labeled "theories", they are hypotheses. That is my one and only point.

NoahsArchive, an Old Earth Evolutionist

Well you shouldn't have had such tight interest in the forum that you can loosen it with such minor trivialities.

"Seriously a debate over ‘population decline’ under an article about the solar system."

Seriously, when you can make a whine about what I say, you don't hesitate to name me specifically.

But when it's See Nowt BSing, well, you have to include the group and single out nobody in particular.

Because religion MUST be respected. Even if it leads to rudeness.

Paul, you have a comment moderator available to you. His name is "scroll wheel" and he is your friend. As a long-time reader you probably already know which named commenters make the sorts of comments you want to read and which don't (and yep I'm fine if the latter group includes me), so why not just scroll over the posts by people you don't think will make astronomy/cosmology relevant comments?

Or just skip.

The moving eye can move over words and not bother scanning them to read.

It's a marvelous instrument!

As to "used to come here to learn", what exactly did your post include that was educational, Paul?

Seriously a debate over ‘population decline’ under an article about the solar system.

There is no debate, there is mocking of S.N.'s repetitive hit-and-run trolling.

To Noahs Archive #32:

Well said.

And truthfully said, I think.
While I myself haven’t been reading *since the ‘60s* about the frequent cosmological model toilet flushing, but only since about the turn of this century, my experience of cosmo science seems the same.

To Ethan or anyone else out there:

Considering the “97% consensus” we hear so much about on another matter of “science”,
what might have been the percentage consensus on the Nice Model before it was disproved?

Yeah, go ahead and disprove AGW. With science. And then that 97% will change their mind.

Why?

Because they're scientists, not deniers.

"How does it seem? Seems you’re an arrogant asshole."

Seems like the only arsehole here is you, dearie.

"I have no interest in Creationism, ID, etc."

Well, so bully for you. Doesn't damn well answer the question, though, does it.

"I don’t think we have a sufficient body of evidence, nor the technology to examine such planets it detail."

Why don't you think?

Why do you think we don't? Have you looked? Checked up yourself on what is current? No? Then your claim is based on your own lack, not on that of others.

Your interest in science doesn't really go further than your arm's reach, does it. If you have to get up out your chair, that's just a little more effort than you're willing to do.

"My point is that many ideas posited as theories are, in fact, even given best evidence, are just pretty good guesses"

Nope. They're not guesses. They're the conclusion of explaining a body of evidence.

AGAIN, your problem isn't science getting the difference between hypothesis and theory wrong, it's that YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE TERMS.

Feel free to berate yourself about being more careful with using the terms.

Projecting it on others is arrogant.

"but the evidence is incomplete,"

How do you know the evidence was incomplete? Because they made a new discovery? Then it wasn't incomplete, it wasn't everything. It still isn't, as far as we know. New evidence doesn't mean the old evidence was incomplete.

Sorry.

That's not how incomplete works. Not even if you want to cry out against hypothesis being under-used.

"I have, since the 60’s, read about at least 5 or 6 theories of how the solar system was formed."

All of them will have been hypotheses at some point. The ones that covered a large amount of evidence available would have then become theories, competing theories. That doesn't mean they were hypotheses,though. Just competing theories.

"And each one has gone down the toilet. "

Really.

Tell me, when Einstein came up with General Relativity, did you float off the planet now Newtonian gravity was "down the toilet"?

If not, then what makes something go down that toilet?

Your assertion?

"these speculations should not be labeled “theories”, they are hypotheses."

The speculations are called speculations. Or hypotheses. The ones called theories aren't merely speculations.

I believe your really getting your panties bunched over String Theory.

No, it's not a hypothesis, since it has a large number of explanatory elements and is not a hypothesis, but a theory.

Untested?

Yes.

This doesn't make it a hypothesis.

Sorry.

Your whine is not enough to change the meanings of words just because you would prefer different ones.

To Ethan or anyone else out there:

Considering the “97% consensus” we hear so much about on another matter of “science”....

Pathetic, attention-whoring, immediate attempt to change the subject duly noted.

And if anyone believe's sn has ever read any article about science, you haven't paid attention to his numerous comments: like the one where he said he would believe in evolution when "one animal gave birth to one of another species, as evolution says should happen", or where he claimed he had misunderstood the subject of a journal article he hadn't read because of "the title the HEADLINE WRITER" for the journal gave it.

No, sn repeatedly demonstrates that he failed to take advantage of the educational system, and never advanced beyond elementary school level thought.

Is there any good book that summarizies how the solar system was formed with all planets and moons:
They were so many events thaia to collide with earth to form the moon, jupiter moving outwards and in again, uranus and neptun swapping places, venus getting hit by a very large object to change it axial tilt and rotation, I think same was for uranus, now a new huge planet orbiting around the sun in around 100 to 200 000 thousand years, what else?... would be great to have a summary...

Surprise Find: Oxygen on Comet P67 by Rosetta.
http://www.nature.com/news/rosetta-sniffs-oxygen-around-this comet-67p-1.18658#/ref-link-1
This seems to also speak against the current theory of solar system formation. Oxygen indicates that comets formed in a freezing process and not in a warm or hot region. Comets probably formed at the end or further away from the solar jet-streams of the young sun...