olofscience

So much evidence, right? And not a single piece of evidence from your gravitational capture theory. Still waiting...

You do know that even a single atom has gravity right? It's always active F = G(m1*m2)/r^2. Even if m1 and m2 are very small, it's still not zero.

You didn't bother to click the second link, did you? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDS_70#Protoplanetary_disk At least 2 planets forming:

Okay, show us the evidence please. I'm betting I can come up with more photos of protoplanetary disks than your evidence of gravitational capture. It's pretty rare - Triton is an exception because the evidence is pretty strong. Evidence is much weaker for Phobos and Deimos. And pretty much NO evidence of extrasolar planets being captured by distant stars.

Really? How about these photos from ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protoplanetary_disk Or this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDS_70#Protoplanetary_disk Or these?

Actually, the capture theory is still pretty controversial for Deimos. But some say that there may have been more debris around Mars in the past, and collisions could explain Deimos' orbit rather than its atmosphere. I don't care whether Mars' moons were captured or not - in fact, if they weren't captured that would be pretty fatal to your argument. You're bending over backwards to try to avoid a far simpler explanation: Venus formed where it is now. But that would mean that your geothermal theory had nothing to stand on, big surprise.

You're not even pretending you're not making things up on the spot! So now you're saying, Venus migrated inward, then flew through the sun's corona to circularize its orbit where it remains now? There are MANY things wrong with that. Venus somehow migrated inward without disturbing the any other planet's orbit (even Mars at half its mass) Venus even went inside Mercury's orbit (since Mercury is still outside the Sun's atmosphere) without disturbing it - Mercury is even a lot lighter than Mars. So you went from 6 problems to 7! You're going the wrong direction here How about those Enceladus thrusters?

That's no moon... (sorry - someone had to say it! )

Anyone with a brain can see that you're making up answers as I dismantle your arguments are you abandoning the Enceladus thrusters now? I'm disappointed. That's not an explanation. Mars' moons orbit close enough to Mars (such that Phobos will one day crash into it) and there is LOADS of evidence that Mars was warmer in the past with a thicker atmosphere, so the atmosphere could act to slow them down and capture them in orbit (see Aerocapture). Mars also happens to be right next to the asteroid belt with many similar objects. Then how come Mars' and Earth's orbits are still very circular? Earth is almost the same mass. Mars is around half the mass of Venus, it should have been thrown around even more. When Triton threw out its neighbours, it threw out almost ALL of them such that it now makes up 95% of the mass of all Neptune's moons. And even if it happened billions of years ago, Triton still has the evidence that it's a capture: It has a retrograde orbit it has an eccentric orbit it resembles the Kuiper belt objects in composition Same with Phobos and Deimos, they resemble the nearby asteroid belt in composition. But your theory has no evidence whatsoever, and it's because you made it up on the spot.

You ignored the huge caveats though: Triton ejected a similar mass, and there are a lot of similar objects now in the Kuiper Belt. Venus is 230 times the mass of Triton, and there's no way it could have gotten there without disturbing the orbits of every planet except Mercury Triton's orbit is still very eccentric, since ejecting that other object didn't make its orbit circular enough. Venus' orbit is the most circular of ALL the planets. So I like your thrusters theory better "He's headed for Venus, Obi-wan!" "That's no Venus..."

This gets better and better! First you make up an entirely new theory just because you couldn't answer my question of why Venus' internal heat was different. Now you're saying Enceladus has "thrusters"? You'll SERIOUSLY add "thrusters" to your Venus theory because of my joke, I'm so flattered this is hilarious! Please, please expand on the problems of the nebular hypothesis, I can't wait to hear your thoughts on it. PS. I'm aware of the geysers on Enceladus, but they hardly produce any thrust.

Back to big words! No more "cold heating warm"? But yes, it's alright to come up with highly speculative theories, but it doesn't excuse not trying to back it up with evidence and explanations of proposed mechanisms, with at least some basic calculations. Oh, and a grasp of basic principles, which you don't have.

No, I think Venus was polishing its thrusters to prepare for entering close orbit around the sun

The fact that you don't even know it has it is funny. There's no sending it the "slow way" when you're talking falling towards the sun - all Venus and Mercury space probes had to do several flybys of earth, Venus and Mercury to bleed off speed. If Venus comes from outside the solar system, it will build up a lot of speed falling towards the sun. Even if it starts slowly, an object coming from outside the solar system will get VERY fast. That's actually how astronomers find them - see: 2I/Borisov and 1I/Oumuamua. You don't realise it, but you're falling for every single "gotcha". Oh, I have a lot you're piling it up, you see.

The scientists you keep saying you know better than? You have no idea how they did it do you Hint: the Cassini probe had thrusters, which the probe used when it arrived. Does Venus have thrusters? If Venus doesn't have thrusters, it needs to transfer its excess angular momentum to something else - otherwise it would violate conservation of energy (one of the Laws of Thermodynamics that you keep ignoring). When real gravitational capture happens an equal mass usually needs to be tossed out. For example with Neptune's moon Triton, a possible actual capture, another similar moon was probably ejected when it happened. Why don't you use your computer programming skills to calculate a possible orbital solution to your Venus hypothesis? Oh right, it's because you have no idea what you're doing, you just use it to impress non-coders.

I was replying to: I didn't say anything about the cold in the Northern Hemisphere, you failed to produce a quote, and now you're inviting me to another dull brenthutch discussion. Couldn't you just re-read our debate last year?

I meant, you were making up stuff that you said I said. Nice goalpost move but it's not going to work.

busted! You were making stuff up. Could you at least make it entertaining, like how Venus comes from Jupiter or outside the solar system because of ancient legends? There could be a Hollywood film in that at least...

Okay, if I said that it would be easy to find my post right? You're making stuff up I'll wait.

She believes Venus came from Jupiter in 1500 BCE evidence? Myths and legends I have to say though, thanks for bringing her in. Your points were getting really dull.

No. After all your attempted jargon at the beginning, name-dropping random scientists, all the vocabulary you can muster now is "cold heating warm"?

I'll take that as a compliment. now you're making shit up again. If I said this, it should be easy to find a quote. Nice try. You're the one who keeps changing the topic and running away from answering my simple questions.

What logic? Please quote me, I haven't been making any points (just been focused on demolishing yours) Have you ever heard of laser cooling? How does that fit into this framework of yours?

Did you read the abstract of that paper? 2000C refers to the laser's target, not the laser itself. Where did you learn to read?

If it's irrelevant, then your entire point is irrelevant because IT'S THE BASIS OF YOUR ENTIRE CALCULATION. Thanks for admitting how irrelevant your point was. So, still no answer why you had to account for sun distance huh? It must have a bigger effect than you're willing to admit.