PDA

View Full Version : Discussion: TV Alert: Origins



Fraser
2004-Sep-28, 05:03 PM
SUMMARY: On PBS Nova tonight there's going to be a special called Origins, which journeys back to the beginning of everything: the universe, Earth and life itself. The show is going to be broken up into two 2-hour episodes. The first airs tonight, and then the second airs tomorrow night. Nova is one of my favorite shows, and this is one of my favorite topics, so I expect it'll be pretty interesting. You'll have to check your local listings for the exact time that it airs. Check out the show's website.

Fraser Cain
Publisher
Universe Today

What do you think about this story? Post your comments below.

om@umr.edu
2004-Sep-28, 05:28 PM
Thanks, Fraser, for the heads-up.

In general the further away we extrapolate in space or time, the greater is the uncertainity of our knowledge.

Thus we know best about material right here in the solar system. And there is a great deal of disagreement about that!

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

StarLab
2004-Sep-28, 07:09 PM
Yeah, I'm gonna be watching it tonigh, for sure. B) ;) :)

TuTone
2004-Sep-28, 08:08 PM
Me too!

Tiny
2004-Sep-29, 01:45 AM
What channel is PBS on cable TV?

om@umr.edu
2004-Sep-29, 03:48 AM
Depends on the cable company.

Channel 9 out of St. Louis, MO.

Channel 21 out of Springfield, MO,

Etc.

Good luck!

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

Fraser
2004-Sep-29, 05:11 AM
I fell asleep watching this. Not a good sign.

om@umr.edu
2004-Sep-29, 08:28 AM
I agree with you, Fraser. I had an appointment, but the first part was obviously out-dated:

At 10:36 PM on Sep 29, 2004 Duane removed examples I had posted about out dated information in the PBS Nova program called Origins, and inserted his statement:

I have warned you about this. Your pet theory is just that-a pet theory. Stay on topic or prepare to be edited.

On a more positive note,

#1. They started in the right place, with a story about the celestial object we know best - Earth's birth.

#2. They correctly noted the presence of "stardust" - fresh stellar debris at the birth of the solar system.

#3. The pictures were great (only the science was outdated by about 20-30 years) !

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

StarLab
2004-Sep-29, 05:25 PM
Oliver, it's a public program for laypeople. None of them care about decays. :rolleyes: (although I agree w/ your 3 finishing pts.)
I also fell asleep...Fraser, you're not alone! :lol: :P :ph34r: :unsure:
However, I believed from the beginning they'll have more success with the second night...about the Big Bang and all. Well, only watching it will tell us...
Also, last night's two hours were a bit slow, according to my Mom.

Guest_alex_gwin
2004-Sep-29, 07:05 PM
i enjoyed it. i do believe tonights...ill enjoy even more!...still it was great last night

Guest
2004-Sep-29, 07:40 PM
I'll also be watching tonight !!! Thanks for reminding us all !!!!!!!

JimAA2QA
2004-Sep-29, 07:56 PM
Just a note of thanks for the heads-up. I watched the show last night and will be watching again tonight. Amazing under what conditions life can exist (acid, heat, etc.).


Best regards from Rochester, NY
Jim

RUF
2004-Sep-29, 08:10 PM
I ALMOST fell asleep too.
I am a lay person, but I found Oliver's facts (in an earlier post) very informative after watching the PBS show.

I am glad that "Origins" didn't follow the typical PBS mantra of blaming humans, big corporations, and republicans for everything from the death of Mars to the extinction of the dinosaurs.

antoniseb
2004-Sep-29, 08:26 PM
Originally posted by om@umr.edu@Sep 29 2004, 08:28 AM
the first part was obviously out-dated:
E.g. #1: H and He were not "swept away" from the inner part of the solar system. They were absent from the inner, Fe,Ni,S-rich region of the protoplanetary nebula.
Are you saying it is outdated because they don't believe your alternative theory on the solar system's origin? Or are you saying that both you and the mainstream astronomers agree that there was never any Hydrogen or Helium in the inner solar system?

om@umr.edu
2004-Sep-29, 08:48 PM
Originally posted by antoniseb@Sep 29 2004, 08:26 PM
Are you saying it is outdated because they don't believe your alternative theory on the solar system's origin? Or are you saying that both you and the mainstream astronomers agree that there was never any Hydrogen or Helium in the inner solar system?
Neither, Anton.

I said nothing about beliefs.

Lay persons understand the difference between beliefs and experimental data.

At 10:39 PM on Sep 29, 2004 Duane removed the experimental data I posted here to show there was no Hydrogen or Helium in the inner solar system and inserted his statement:

"To remind everyone, the topic is the show that aired last might on PBS with parts 3 and 4 showing tonight."

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

antoniseb
2004-Sep-29, 09:03 PM
Originally posted by om@umr.edu+Sep 29 2004, 08:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (om@umr.edu @ Sep 29 2004, 08:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-antoniseb@Sep 29 2004, 08:26 PM
Are you saying it is outdated because they don&#39;t believe your alternative theory on the solar system&#39;s origin? Or are you saying that both you and the mainstream astronomers agree that there was never any Hydrogen or Helium in the inner solar system?
Neither [/b][/quote]
Following the logic of my question and your response, I read that either you or mainstream astronomers do not agree on whether there was ever any Hydrogen or Helium in the inner solar system. It also follows that you&#39;ve stated that the show was outdated because they agreed with the mainstream astronomers, and ignored the conclusions you have drawn from old papers and out-of-date observations.

Why not simply say that you didn&#39;t like the show because they ignored your debunked alternative theory?

Ed Tosh/Mesa AZ
2004-Sep-29, 09:08 PM
All in all. there wasn&#39;t much on last night anyway. I found much of the "science" presented to be either very old theory or theories with serious questions yet to be answered. I had hoped PBS would live up to it&#39;s past excellence, but was somewhat disappointed. The narration would have been as effective had it been done by LaVar Burton. I may or may not watch the second part. Too bad......there is a huge audience for space exploritiry and life sciences. They should never be disrespected or viewed as novices of interest.

PBS did a much better job trying to explain string theory in "The Theory of Everything." This show was a snoozer.

Duane
2004-Sep-29, 10:10 PM
Jeepers Oliver, I leave you alone for awhile and you jump right back into making unsupported remarks in a manner that suggests there is some truth to your statements. My editing stick is out now sir, so be warned&#33; Stay on topic or I will start deleting your posts, not just editing the content.

StarLab
2004-Sep-29, 10:40 PM
Yeah, Oliver, I agree with Duane; talk about the show, please, not other findings. Thank you.

Duane
2004-Sep-29, 10:43 PM
I also fell asleep trying to watch it :( The beginning was pretty good, and I liked the bulk of the graphics, but it got pretty mundane pretty quickly. I&#39;ll still watch the rest tonight.

StarLab
2004-Sep-29, 10:50 PM
Good idea, Duan. ;)
By the way, for everyone else, a little header: check PBS NOVA series programs for over the next few weeks. There should be some other cool stuff on. For example, here in LA there will be, I think, a program on Strings on KCET, and not long after that in the beginning of October, another NOVA program on KOCE. So check your local area listings for upcoming NOVA shows. Bonne chance&#33;

StarLab
2004-Sep-30, 04:51 AM
Hmm...I just watched the second night of the series...a bit more interesting than last night, though I barely managed to stay awake near the end. However, some of the post-COBE stuff was pretty new to me, so I&#39;d give it a better review/rating than last night&#39;s program. ;)

eoleen
2004-Sep-30, 05:45 AM
Originally posted by antoniseb+Sep 29 2004, 09:03 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (antoniseb &#064; Sep 29 2004, 09:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by om@umr.edu@Sep 29 2004, 08:48 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-antoniseb@Sep 29 2004, 08:26 PM
Are you saying it is outdated because they don&#39;t believe your alternative theory on the solar system&#39;s origin? Or are you saying that both you and the mainstream astronomers agree that there was never any Hydrogen or Helium in the inner solar system?
Neither
Following the logic of my question and your response, I read that either you or mainstream astronomers do not agree on whether there was ever any Hydrogen or Helium in the inner solar system. It also follows that you&#39;ve stated that the show was outdated because they agreed with the mainstream astronomers, and ignored the conclusions you have drawn from old papers and out-of-date observations.

Why not simply say that you didn&#39;t like the show because they ignored your debunked alternative theory? [/b][/quote]
You know, this is another example of just why I find fora so frustrating. Here we have two supposedly intelligent people arguing over nonsense.

First of all, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE define "inner solar system".... Do you mean, for instance, inside Earth&#39;s orbit? Or maybe inside Mercury&#39;s?? Or, just maybe, you are refering to inside Uranus&#39;s orbit???

Secondly, it really doesn&#39;t make a hill of beans difference which object you choose. I will flatly state the the "inner solar system" is almost ENTIRELY H and He, no matter which object you children select as your reference boundary.

Evidence, you say? Well, what about the local fusion furnace, aka The Sun? There would certainly seem to be enough H and He there to out-weigh any and all other matter that could properly be refered to as "part of the solar system". (I include the Oort Cloud, or at least that part of it that can be claimed to orbit the Sun, as part of the solar system.)

So lets STOP these niggling objections to what is designed to be a PhD level course for the vast number of scientific illiterates out there - the ones who are not so far sunk in thumb-sucking as to be unable to unhook themselves from the IV drip of the "sports news".

By the way: our problems may soon be over. The ice streams that feed the Larsen B ice-shelf sped up up to 8 times once the shelf broke up a while back. If our knowledge of the behaviour of large ice caps is as faulty as I think it is, the assurances that the whole thing can&#39;t let go rather rapidly if not all at once are probably not worth the paper they are written on. Remember: if it does let go, we are in for an increase in sea level on the order of magnitude of 0.06 miles, or some 300+ feet. That makes fixing up Florida after the current spate of hurricanes rather moot... Amongst other things.

om@umr.edu
2004-Sep-30, 12:14 PM
Originally posted by eoleen+Sep 30 2004, 05:45 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (eoleen &#064; Sep 30 2004, 05:45 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by antoniseb@Sep 29 2004, 09:03 PM

Originally posted by om@umr.edu@Sep 29 2004, 08:48 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-antoniseb@Sep 29 2004, 08:26 PM
Are you saying it is outdated because they don&#39;t believe your alternative theory on the solar system&#39;s origin? Or are you saying that both you and the mainstream astronomers agree that there was never any Hydrogen or Helium in the inner solar system?
Neither
Following the logic of my question and your response, I read that either you or mainstream astronomers do not agree on whether there was ever any Hydrogen or Helium in the inner solar system. It also follows that you&#39;ve stated that the show was outdated because they agreed with the mainstream astronomers, and ignored the conclusions you have drawn from old papers and out-of-date observations.

Why not simply say that you didn&#39;t like the show because they ignored your debunked alternative theory?
You know, this is another example of just why I find fora so frustrating. Here we have two supposedly intelligent people arguing over nonsense.

First of all, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE define "inner solar system".... Do you mean, for instance, inside Earth&#39;s orbit? Or maybe inside Mercury&#39;s?? Or, just maybe, you are refering to inside Uranus&#39;s orbit???

Secondly, it really doesn&#39;t make a hill of beans difference which object you choose. I will flatly state the the "inner solar system" is almost ENTIRELY H and He, no matter which object you children select as your reference boundary.

Evidence, you say? Well, what about the local fusion furnace, aka The Sun? There would certainly seem to be enough H and He there to out-weigh any and all other matter that could properly be refered to as "part of the solar system". (I include the Oort Cloud, or at least that part of it that can be claimed to orbit the Sun, as part of the solar system.)

So lets STOP these niggling objections to what is designed to be a PhD level course for the vast number of scientific illiterates out there - the ones who are not so far sunk in thumb-sucking as to be unable to unhook themselves from the IV drip of the "sports news".

By the way: our problems may soon be over. The ice streams that feed the Larsen B ice-shelf sped up up to 8 times once the shelf broke up a while back. If our knowledge of the behaviour of large ice caps is as faulty as I think it is, the assurances that the whole thing can&#39;t let go rather rapidly if not all at once are probably not worth the paper they are written on. Remember: if it does let go, we are in for an increase in sea level on the order of magnitude of 0.06 miles, or some 300+ feet. That makes fixing up Florida after the current spate of hurricanes rather moot... Amongst other things. [/b][/quote]
The Inner Solar System includes the area swept out by the four terrestrial planets:

Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars

These planets are rich in elements like Fe, O, Si, and S.

The Outer Solar System includes the area beyond the asteroid belt.

Planets there consist mostly of lightweight elements like H, He, C and N.

The asteroid belt is the inner/outer solar system boundary.

The show was outdated because it did not include results from many recent analyses. E.g.,

Data deleted by Duane show that Jupiter and the Sun formed out of different material:

1.) Xe in Jupiter and in carbon-rich inclusions of meteorites have "strange" isotope ratios.

2.) Xe in Earth, Mars, and FeS-rich inclusions of meteorites have "normal" isotope ratios.

3.) Xe at the (H,He)-rich surface of the Sun is "normal" Xe - like that in Earth, Mars, and FeS-rich inclusions of meteorites - except that the lighter isotopes are enriched by 3.5% per mass unit.

4.) Xe has recorded solar mass separation over the mass range of 12 atomic mass units, from Xe-124 to Xe-136. The lighter mass isotopes are systematically enriched by 3.5% per mass unit.

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

GOURDHEAD
2004-Sep-30, 01:33 PM
How widespread is the belief that the earth became completely molten during the latter stages of its formation as indicated by the graphics? It had to be molten in a very large portion of its interior in order for iron and nickle to differentiate, but it seems somewhat likely that a solid, if plastic, crust might have been present all through its formation.

If the moon forming collision was with a body that accreted from a spherical shell a million miles thick that also contained the earth, would the collision have been more of a "bump-crunch" from small relative velocity than the graphically presented "slam dunk"? It seems that the energy required to orbit the material that became the moon would have required a body with a larger relative velocity than that of one forming in the neighborhood as asserted in the narration. Is there a "within three sigma of the mean" probability of there being enough material in such a region of the solar system to form both the earth and a Mars sized body? How could their constituents have avoided merging long before the "martian-sized object" grew to the size assumed?

Iron and carbonaceous chrondite meteorites have the appearace of objects that formed in an igneous environment which suggests that they were once part of a much larger body for which the heat of liquifaction for these materials is expected. What is the current widely held view of how these objects came to be as they are?

It was said that inflation stopped suddenly. Does anyone other than I have trouble conjuring up forces/energies capable of stopping (reducing to a much smaller value) all that expansion momentum? I was hoping for a more detailed treatment of the energy/mass configuration during the time from BB to BB + 10^-35 seconds.
What are the widely held views about the size of the time interval required to go from the inflation rate of expansion to the "normal" rate? It&#39;s hard to accept that it could have been a step function. If the size and energy of the total physical universe recently reported to be 156 billion light years wide was only 10 or so light years wide immediately after the inflation epoch and the expansion rate has been less than light speed for the last 13.7 billion light years, how large can the universe really be and the big bang myth be preserved?

GOURDHEAD
2004-Sep-30, 01:48 PM
[QUOTE]Remember: if it does let go, we are in for an increase in sea level on the order of magnitude of 0.06 miles, or some 300+ feet.

Does this estimate come from a reliable source or is it more global warming hype?
If true and if the event should occur in as short an interval as 10 minutes, how large a tsunami would be generated?What is the minimum interval allowd by the geology and physics of the process?

StarLab
2004-Sep-30, 03:21 PM
The show was outdated because it did not include results from many recent analyses. E.g.,

Data deleted by Duane show that Jupiter and the Sun formed out of different material:

1.) Xe in Jupiter and in carbon-rich inclusions of meteorites have "strange" isotope ratios.

2.) Xe in Earth, Mars, and FeS-rich inclusions of meteorites have "normal" isotope ratios.

3.) Xe at the (H,He)-rich surface of the Sun is "normal" Xe - like that in Earth, Mars, and FeS-rich inclusions of meteorites - except that the lighter isotopes are enriched by 3.5% per mass unit.

4.) Xe has recorded solar mass separation over the mass range of 12 atomic mass units, from Xe-124 to Xe-136. The lighter mass isotopes are systematically enriched by 3.5% per mass unit. First of all, Oliver, I find it unlikely that numbers like these would appear on a public boadcast program. Second of all, this show in no way was meant to detail those little discrepancies in Jupiter. The little details of the sun, also are not likely to appear in an educational program about life on earth.

GOURDHEAD
2004-Sep-30, 05:54 PM
One of the consulting experts expressed doubts that DNA and "earth-like" faces should be expected to occur throughout the MW much less the whole universe. I disagree. The natural selection filter begins operation sufficiently early in the process to promote the formation of DNA and critters that see, hear, taste, feel, manipulate, and run (or swim, or fly, or each of these). This will give rise to very face-like fromations somewhere on their body. Even if other molecules are tried out by evolution, the DNA ones will win the race and produce the "earth-like" critters. Natural selection will favor placing faces close to brains; other configurations can work but not as well hence losing the survival race. And I haven&#39;t even invoked panspermia.

The cephalopods are impressive as potential hosts for intelligence leading to technology development on places like Europa, Ganymede and Callisto (perhaps even Titan). If evolution has added bio-torches and bio-electromagnetic transmitters/receivers (extrapolated eyes) to their physiology and silicate exo-skeletons as well, they can become formidable competitors/cooperators for the role of custodians of the solar system.

I was disappointed with the information density of the program. One glaring omission was a bio-physicist to address the metallicity fingerprint of the solar system and how similar it is to MW stars. Within the local metallicity what charge affinities guide the likelihood of RNA/DNA and their predecessor molecules being favored by natural selection.

om@umr.edu
2004-Sep-30, 09:54 PM
Originally posted by GOURDHEAD@Sep 30 2004, 01:33 PM
1. How widespread is the belief that the earth became completely molten during the latter stages of its formation as indicated by the graphics? It had to be molten in a very large portion of its interior in order for iron and nickle to differentiate, but it seems somewhat likely that a solid, if plastic, crust might have been present all through its formation.

2. Iron and carbonaceous chrondite meteorites have the appearace of objects that formed in an igneous environment which suggests that they were once part of a much larger body for which the heat of liquifaction for these materials is expected. What is the current widely held view of how these objects came to be as they are?

1. Heterogeneous accretion of Earth, first by accretion of iron-rich material and then by depositing silicates on these iron-cores was suggested by:

A. Eucken (1944) Nachr. s. Akad. d. Wiss. in Goettingen, Math-Phys. vol. 1, pp. 1-25.

K. K. Turekian and S. P. Clarke (1969) Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. vol. 6, pp. 346-348.

A. P. Vinogradov (1975) Geokhimiya no. 10, pp. 1427-1431.

Vinogradov (Vernadsky Institute) and Turekian (Yale) are widely regarded as two of the world&#39;s leading geochemists.

Textbooks still show iron sinking to the center of a molten Earth. That simple picture is easy to grasp, although the gravitational field at the center of the Earth is zero&#33;

2. Some heavy elements have different isotope abundances in iron-rich and in carbon-rich inclusions of meteorites. This suggests, for example, that carbon and iron were never mixed together after element synthesis.

In one case, these same differences have been seen in iron-rich planets from the inner solar system and in carbon-rich planets from the outer solar system.

The currently widely held view is that these observations on meteorites can be explained by the presence of interstellar grains. We do not agree. So far as I know we are the only ones who have addressed the observation of "strange" Xe in Jupiter&#39;s carbon-rich atmosphere.

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu~om

antoniseb
2004-Oct-01, 12:36 AM
Originally posted by om@umr.edu@Sep 30 2004, 09:54 PM
So far as I know we are the only ones who have addressed the observation of "strange" Xe in Jupiter&#39;s carbon-rich atmosphere.
Yes, I have not seen any other serious attempt to explain this observation. But, as VanderL has pointed out, the lack of another previously stated explanation does not prove the only known explanation.

blueshift
2004-Oct-01, 02:07 AM
Oliver,

You just give us screens of data...that are collected with a point of view..
Tim Thompson works for an outfit that has flying machines all over our solar system and you don&#39;t..All you have is a diploma...a sheet of paper with ink on it
that proves you can pass multiple choice tests..

What evidence can you show that fusion of hydrogen takes place in a low
density outer area of the sun as you propose? What equipment are you using that is more advanced than NASA&#39;s ??

To keep on subject before Oliver tries to become the center of attention on every thread, the show "Origins" was a bit better the second night...COBE and WMAP
workings and the competition taking place was interesting..The tradeoffs between
a ground system and a space system were brought out clearly...

Could it have been better? Sure..but the drawback of creating any TV special is that it takes a while to put a show together...long enough to be out of date for
many of us....but what about the effect on those with no background and previous interest in astro physics?...

I don&#39;t think that we can tell..Mars got publicity that gave us huge attention in 2003...a bit unexpected....This show was much better than Carl Sagan&#39;s "COSMOS"
series...It showed more experiments...Sagan just blabbed and played music...and
showed one or two expeiments...

Tyson&#39;s video course is miles better....way better..

blueshift

om@umr.edu
2004-Oct-01, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by blueshift@Oct 1 2004, 02:07 AM
Oliver,

1. Tim Thompson works for an outfit that has flying machines all over our solar system and you don&#39;t...

2. What equipment are you using that is more advanced than NASA&#39;s ?

blueshift


Blueshift is partially right.

1. NASA&#39;s Apollo missions to the Moon were expensive but worthwhile.

Surfaces of lunar soils returned by Apollo were embedded with atoms from the solar wind.

Golden Hwaung and I used solar-wind implanted atoms in lunar soils to determine the composition of the Sun in 1983.

"Solar abundance of the elements", Meteoritics 18 (1983) pp. 209-222.

Twenty years later, NASA&#39;s &#036;260,000,000 Genesis mission was used to collect solar-wind atoms. Their analysis was suppose to determine the composition of the Sun.

2. Common sense?

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

Fraser
2004-Oct-01, 05:19 PM
Take the conversation about evidence for or against an Iron Sun to the right place:

http://www.universetoday.com/forum/index.p...?showtopic=2544 (http://www.universetoday.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=2544)

Not here. I don&#39;t want to see this popping up all the time.

eoleen
2004-Oct-05, 05:43 AM
Originally posted by om@umr.edu+Sep 30 2004, 12:14 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (om@umr.edu @ Sep 30 2004, 12:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by eoleen@Sep 30 2004, 05:45 AM

Originally posted by antoniseb@Sep 29 2004, 09:03 PM

Originally posted by om@umr.edu@Sep 29 2004, 08:48 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-antoniseb@Sep 29 2004, 08:26 PM
Are you saying it is outdated because they don&#39;t believe your alternative theory on the solar system&#39;s origin? Or are you saying that both you and the mainstream astronomers agree that there was never any Hydrogen or Helium in the inner solar system?
Neither
Following the logic of my question and your response, I read that either you or mainstream astronomers do not agree on whether there was ever any Hydrogen or Helium in the inner solar system. It also follows that you&#39;ve stated that the show was outdated because they agreed with the mainstream astronomers, and ignored the conclusions you have drawn from old papers and out-of-date observations.

Why not simply say that you didn&#39;t like the show because they ignored your debunked alternative theory?
You know, this is another example of just why I find fora so frustrating. Here we have two supposedly intelligent people arguing over nonsense.

First of all, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE define "inner solar system".... Do you mean, for instance, inside Earth&#39;s orbit? Or maybe inside Mercury&#39;s?? Or, just maybe, you are refering to inside Uranus&#39;s orbit???

Secondly, it really doesn&#39;t make a hill of beans difference which object you choose. I will flatly state the the "inner solar system" is almost ENTIRELY H and He, no matter which object you children select as your reference boundary.

Evidence, you say? Well, what about the local fusion furnace, aka The Sun? There would certainly seem to be enough H and He there to out-weigh any and all other matter that could properly be refered to as "part of the solar system". (I include the Oort Cloud, or at least that part of it that can be claimed to orbit the Sun, as part of the solar system.)

So lets STOP these niggling objections to what is designed to be a PhD level course for the vast number of scientific illiterates out there - the ones who are not so far sunk in thumb-sucking as to be unable to unhook themselves from the IV drip of the "sports news".

By the way: our problems may soon be over. The ice streams that feed the Larsen B ice-shelf sped up up to 8 times once the shelf broke up a while back. If our knowledge of the behaviour of large ice caps is as faulty as I think it is, the assurances that the whole thing can&#39;t let go rather rapidly if not all at once are probably not worth the paper they are written on. Remember: if it does let go, we are in for an increase in sea level on the order of magnitude of 0.06 miles, or some 300+ feet. That makes fixing up Florida after the current spate of hurricanes rather moot... Amongst other things.
The Inner Solar System includes the area swept out by the four terrestrial planets:

Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars

These planets are rich in elements like Fe, O, Si, and S.

The Outer Solar System includes the area beyond the asteroid belt.

Planets there consist mostly of lightweight elements like H, He, C and N.

The asteroid belt is the inner/outer solar system boundary.

The show was outdated because it did not include results from many recent analyses. E.g.,

Data deleted by Duane show that Jupiter and the Sun formed out of different material:

1.) Xe in Jupiter and in carbon-rich inclusions of meteorites have "strange" isotope ratios.

2.) Xe in Earth, Mars, and FeS-rich inclusions of meteorites have "normal" isotope ratios.

3.) Xe at the (H,He)-rich surface of the Sun is "normal" Xe - like that in Earth, Mars, and FeS-rich inclusions of meteorites - except that the lighter isotopes are enriched by 3.5% per mass unit.

4.) Xe has recorded solar mass separation over the mass range of 12 atomic mass units, from Xe-124 to Xe-136. The lighter mass isotopes are systematically enriched by 3.5% per mass unit.

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om [/b][/quote]
I THOUGHT you&#39;d say something like that...

You went and did it again, even though I gave you not just a clue but the ANSWER.

What, exactly did you do?

Why, you completely ignored the center-piece of the whole affair: the Sun.

This object, which is the center (or near center) of the Solar System, is a largeish mass of primarily H and He, which, due to contraction due to it&#39;s mass, has self-heated to the point that one or more of various fusion processes is taking place in the core or near-core, with the result that the object has become a bit hotter and is emitting a whole bunch of photons per second.

The presence of some rather small rocky bodies (called planets) within 10 or 12 light-minutes is COMPLETELY over-ridden by the central fact of the hydrogen fusor. Any local concentrations of material other than H and He are likewise completely insignificant. As is the presence of supposedly-intellegent life on one or more of these objects.