similarities of encounter hypothesis and protoplanet hypothesissimilarities of encounter hypothesis and protoplanet hypothesis

[45] Theories at the time suggested that stars evolved moving down the main sequence of the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram, starting as diffuse red supergiants before contracting and heating to become blue main-sequence stars, then even further down to red dwarfs before finally ending up as cool, dense black dwarfs. There are two types of responses to decompression-driven planetary volume increases: cracks, which were formed to increase surface area, and folding, which created mountain ranges to accommodate changes in curvature. In 1951, 1962, and 1981, Swiss astronomer Louis Jacot,[18] like Weizscker and Ter Haar, continued the Cartesian idea of vortices but proposed a hierarchy of vortices, or vortices within vortices, i.e. The planets condensed from small clouds developed in or captured by the second cloud. Protostars are formed about a million years after a gas clump from an interstellar gas cloud has started. Another issue with this hypothesis is that it does, The Protoplanet hypothesis and the Planetesimal hypothesis are different from this. This hypothesis has the advantage of explaining why the planets all revolve in the same direction (from the encounter geometry) and also provides an explanation for why the inner worlds are denser than the outer worlds. The Encounter Hypothesis suggests that the Solar System formed as a result of a near collision between a passing star and the Sun.. Pluto, formerly the ninth planet, is located in this region of space. [8] In 1929, astronomer Harold Jeffreys countered that such a near-collision was massively unlikely. French philosopher and mathematician Ren Descartes was the first to propose a model for the origin of the Solar System in his book The World, written from 1629 to 1633. How Are Planets Formed? - Universe Today A few such floccules agglomerated, reached a critical mass . Chapter 2 - Earth Systems Flashcards | Quizlet A solar system is a star that has planets, moons, asteroids, comets, and meteoroids travel around it. First, several young stars, such as Beta Pictoris, were found to be surrounded by discs of cool dust, much as was predicted by the nebular hypothesis. It is now believed these observations are explained by events that happened after the initial formation of the Solar System.[44]. The refined nebular model was developed entirely on observations of the Solar System because it was the only one known until the mid-1990s. 2 0 obj The Protoplanet theory. Decent Essays. Such densities are possible because white dwarf material is not composed of atoms bound by chemical bonds, but rather consists of a plasma of unbound nuclei and electrons. How does the protoplanet theory explain the origin of the solar system? Petit J-M, Morbidelli A, Chambers J (2001) The Primordial Excitation and Clearing of the Asteroid Belt. Both rocky and gaseous planets have a similar growth model. The LibreTexts libraries arePowered by NICE CXone Expertand are supported by the Department of Education Open Textbook Pilot Project, the UC Davis Office of the Provost, the UC Davis Library, the California State University Affordable Learning Solutions Program, and Merlot. How to Write a Strong Hypothesis | Steps & Examples - Scribbr However, in 1952, physicist Ed Salpeter showed that a short enough time existed between the formation and the decay of the beryllium isotope that another helium had a small chance to form carbon, but only if their combined mass/energy amounts were equal to that of carbon-12. Please do like and share A hypothesis that states about the origin of our solar system, Encounter hypothesis . The fate of the protoplanetary disks, for example, is presently impossible to predict. Planetesimals / p l n t s m l z / are solid objects thought to exist in protoplanetary disks and debris disks.Per the Chamberlin-Moulton planetesimal hypothesis, they are believed to form out of cosmic dust grains. The Jeans-Jeffreys tidal hypothesis, championed by James Jeans and Harold Jeffreys, explained the origin of the Solar System as a result of a close encounter between the Sun and a second star. F8etZDz9CFXp]j[Xxw{.&wH ~|56;NHH)@f1V==>rCd6QEwj* +"RAV+gi!g}[%GHhlzag1">?V^ Zy&"LeD Mo]-aVQ0,{MpEP,8v"uR)l4,E[4Yv 9L+Zmp^UW4Q)P6zV4g H>6 h@&a2 ~|u|>:j^{RL He also recognized four groups: models based on the solar nebula, originated by Swedenborg, Kant, and Laplace in the 1700s; hypotheses proposing a cloud captured from interstellar space, major proponents being Alfvn and Gustaf Arrhenius in 1978; the binary hypotheses which propose that a sister star somehow disintegrated and a portion of its dissipating material was captured by the Sun, with the principal hypothesizer being Lyttleton in the 1940s; and the close-approach filament ideas of Jeans, Jeffreys, and Woolfson and Dormand. The null hypothesis is written as H 0, while the alternative hypothesis is H 1 or H a. 17: 226. Jupiters massive gravity further shaped the solar system and growth of the inner rocky planets. The origin of the Solar System | Royal Museums Greenwich - Cutty Sark The gas that formed the Solar System was slightly more massive than the Sun itself. [56] Since hotter bodies radiate more than colder ones, a star's surface brightness can be estimated from its effective surface temperature, and hence from its spectrum. The Protoplanet Hypothesis - 693 Words | Cram The capture model fails to explain the similarity in these isotopes (if the Moon had originated in another part of the Solar System, those isotopes would have been different), while the co-accretion model cannot adequately explain the loss of water (if the Moon formed similarly to the Earth, the amount of water trapped in its mineral structure would also be roughly similar). In this model, there were 4 phases to the planets: no rotation and keeping the same side to the Sun, very slow, accelerated, and daily rotation. PPTX Slide 1 Meanwhile, hypotheses explaining the evolution of the Sun originated in the nineteenth century, especially as scientists began to understand how stars in general functioned. % The sun passed through a dense interstellar cloud and emerged with a dusty, gaseuos . In contrast, hypotheses attempting to explain the origin of the Moon have been circulating for centuries, although all of the widely accepted hypotheses were proven false by the Apollo missions in the mid-twentieth century. solar system: | Infoplease However, the Sun only has enough gravitational potential energy to power its luminosity by this mechanism for about 30 million yearsfar less than the age of the Earth. Solar System and its Origin) - SlideShare Although these planets have very different properties, they are connected due to their history. [3], The existing hypotheses were all refuted by the Apollo lunar missions in the late 1960s and early 1970s, which introduced a stream of new scientific evidence, specifically concerning the Moon's composition, age, and history. These were V (Maldek,[23] V standing for the fifth planet, the first four including Mercury and Mars), K (Krypton), T (transneptunian), and Planet X. Planets form from compact masses made in whirlpools in the Protoplanet hypothesis, and planets are created from collisions of planetesimals in the Planetesimal hypothesis. This paper is about the history of astronomy from the 1st telescope to the last astronaut. This model posits that, 4.6 billion years ago, the Solar System was formed by the gravitational collapse of a giant molecular cloud spanning several light-years. It differs from Laplace in that a magnetic torque occurred between the disk and the Sun, which came into effect immediately; otherwise, more and more matter would have been ejected, resulting in a massive planetary system exceeding the size of the existing one and comparable to the Sun. The two opposing forces in a star are gravity (contracts) and thermal nuclear energy (expands). The star eventually grew larger and collected more dust and gas that collapsed into it. Pluto passed the first two parts of the definition, but not the third. In Weizscker's model, a combination of the clockwise rotation of each vortex and the anti-clockwise rotation of the whole system could lead to individual elements moving around the central mass in Keplerian orbits, reducing energy dissipation due to overall motion. In planets LHB-A, Jupiter, LHB-B, and Saturn, the inner and smaller partner in each pair was subjected to enormous tidal stresses, causing it to blow up. The hypothesis states conservation of angular momentum needed a circulating disk and circulating around paths or orbits which may be treated as disks and sun as its center. A tortoise moves with the help of its limbs/flippers. Accessibility StatementFor more information contact us atinfo@libretexts.org. In the disc, mass accumulated in multiple whirlpools due to friction. The orbits would be nearly circular because accretion would reduce eccentricity due to the influence of the resisting medium, and orbital orientations would be similar because of the size of the small cloud and the common direction of the motions. As time passed, the cloud shrank under the pull of its own gravitation or was made to. The protoplanet hypothesis explains most of the features of the Solar System; however, the outer solar system is still . One of the earliest theories for the formation of the planets was called theencounter hypothesis. This was done for Sirius B by 1910,[55] yielding a mass estimate of 0.94M (a more modern estimate being 1.00M). The reason is because of inertia, the effect of an item of matter not changing without an outside force. Ter Haar and Cameron[26] distinguished between those hypotheses that consider a closed system, which is a development of the Sun and possibly a solar envelope, that starts with a protosun rather than the Sun itself, and state that Belot calls these hypotheses monistic; and those that consider an open system, which is where there is an interaction between the Sun and some foreign body that is supposed to have been the first step in the developments leading to the planetary system, and state that Belot calls these hypotheses dualistic. A star can collapse to such a small size only once it has exhausted all its nuclear fuel, so planetary nebulae came to be understood as a final stage of stellar evolution. The filaments cooled into numerous, tiny, solid planetesimals and a few larger protoplanets. The matter that was kept within itself began moving in a giant circle and at the center of the spinning cloud a tiny star began to form. These lines of evidence contradict many predictions made by these earlier models. In this idea, there were 6 original planets, corresponding to 6 point-masses in the filament, with planets A and B, the two innermost, colliding. In this scheme, there are six principal planets: two terrestrial, Venus and Earth; two major, Jupiter and Saturn; and two outer, Uranus and Neptune, along with three lesser planets: Mercury, Mars, and Pluto. The torque caused a magnetic coupling and acted to transfer angular momentum from the Sun to the disk. Another flaw is the mechanism from which the disk turns into individual planets. . Gravity forces solar systems into this cycle. Question: compare and contrast nebular hypothesis and protoplanet hypothesis. Mercury's eccentric orbit was explained by its recent expulsion from the Sun and Venus' slow rotation as its being in the "slow rotation phase", having been expelled second to last. While the unusual spectra of red giant stars had been known since the 19th century,[48] it was George Gamow who, in the 1940s, first understood that they were stars of roughly solar mass that had run out of hydrogen in their cores and had resorted to burning the hydrogen in their outer shells. This smoke cloud captured a smaller one with a large angular momentum. But why is that? An Introduction to Geology (Johnson, Affolter, Inkenbrandt, and Mosher), { "8.01:_Origin_of_the_Universe" : "property get [Map MindTouch.Deki.Logic.ExtensionProcessorQueryProvider+<>c__DisplayClass228_0.b__1]()", "8.02:_Origin_of_the_Solar_SystemThe_Nebular_Hypothesis" : "property get [Map MindTouch.Deki.Logic.ExtensionProcessorQueryProvider+<>c__DisplayClass228_0.b__1]()", "8.03:_Hadean_Eon" : "property get [Map MindTouch.Deki.Logic.ExtensionProcessorQueryProvider+<>c__DisplayClass228_0.b__1]()", "8.04:_Archean_Eon" : "property get [Map MindTouch.Deki.Logic.ExtensionProcessorQueryProvider+<>c__DisplayClass228_0.b__1]()", "8.05:_Proterozoic_Eon" : "property get [Map MindTouch.Deki.Logic.ExtensionProcessorQueryProvider+<>c__DisplayClass228_0.b__1]()", "8.06:_Paleozoic" : "property get [Map MindTouch.Deki.Logic.ExtensionProcessorQueryProvider+<>c__DisplayClass228_0.b__1]()", "8.07:_Mesozoic" : "property get [Map MindTouch.Deki.Logic.ExtensionProcessorQueryProvider+<>c__DisplayClass228_0.b__1]()", "8.08:_Cenozoic" : "property get [Map MindTouch.Deki.Logic.ExtensionProcessorQueryProvider+<>c__DisplayClass228_0.b__1]()" }, { "00:_Front_Matter" : "property get [Map MindTouch.Deki.Logic.ExtensionProcessorQueryProvider+<>c__DisplayClass228_0.b__1]()", "01:_Understanding_Science" : "property get [Map MindTouch.Deki.Logic.ExtensionProcessorQueryProvider+<>c__DisplayClass228_0.b__1]()", "02:_Plate_Tectonics" : "property get [Map MindTouch.Deki.Logic.ExtensionProcessorQueryProvider+<>c__DisplayClass228_0.b__1]()", "03:_Minerals" : "property get [Map MindTouch.Deki.Logic.ExtensionProcessorQueryProvider+<>c__DisplayClass228_0.b__1]()", "04:_Igneous_Processes_and_Volcanoes" : "property get [Map MindTouch.Deki.Logic.ExtensionProcessorQueryProvider+<>c__DisplayClass228_0.b__1]()", "05:_Weathering_Erosion_and_Sedimentary_Rocks" : "property get [Map MindTouch.Deki.Logic.ExtensionProcessorQueryProvider+<>c__DisplayClass228_0.b__1]()", "06:_Metamorphic_Rocks" : "property get [Map MindTouch.Deki.Logic.ExtensionProcessorQueryProvider+<>c__DisplayClass228_0.b__1]()", "07:_Geologic_Time" : "property get [Map MindTouch.Deki.Logic.ExtensionProcessorQueryProvider+<>c__DisplayClass228_0.b__1]()", "08:_Earth_History" : "property get [Map MindTouch.Deki.Logic.ExtensionProcessorQueryProvider+<>c__DisplayClass228_0.b__1]()", "09:_Crustal_Deformation_and_Earthquakes" : "property get [Map MindTouch.Deki.Logic.ExtensionProcessorQueryProvider+<>c__DisplayClass228_0.b__1]()", "10:_Mass_Wasting" : "property get [Map MindTouch.Deki.Logic.ExtensionProcessorQueryProvider+<>c__DisplayClass228_0.b__1]()", "11:_Water" : "property get [Map MindTouch.Deki.Logic.ExtensionProcessorQueryProvider+<>c__DisplayClass228_0.b__1]()", "12:__Coastlines" : "property get [Map MindTouch.Deki.Logic.ExtensionProcessorQueryProvider+<>c__DisplayClass228_0.b__1]()", "13:_Deserts" : "property get [Map MindTouch.Deki.Logic.ExtensionProcessorQueryProvider+<>c__DisplayClass228_0.b__1]()", "14:_Glaciers" : "property get [Map MindTouch.Deki.Logic.ExtensionProcessorQueryProvider+<>c__DisplayClass228_0.b__1]()", "15:_Global_Climate_Change" : "property get [Map MindTouch.Deki.Logic.ExtensionProcessorQueryProvider+<>c__DisplayClass228_0.b__1]()", "16:_Energy_and_Mineral_Resources" : "property get [Map MindTouch.Deki.Logic.ExtensionProcessorQueryProvider+<>c__DisplayClass228_0.b__1]()", "zz:_Back_Matter" : "property get [Map MindTouch.Deki.Logic.ExtensionProcessorQueryProvider+<>c__DisplayClass228_0.b__1]()" }, 8.2: Origin of the Solar SystemThe Nebular Hypothesis, [ "article:topic", "showtoc:no", "license:ccbyncsa", "authorname:johnsonaffolterinkenbmosher" ], https://geo.libretexts.org/@app/auth/3/login?returnto=https%3A%2F%2Fgeo.libretexts.org%2FBookshelves%2FGeology%2FBook%253A_An_Introduction_to_Geology_(Johnson_Affolter_Inkenbrandt_and_Mosher)%2F08%253A_Earth_History%2F8.02%253A_Origin_of_the_Solar_SystemThe_Nebular_Hypothesis, \( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}}}\) \( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{#1}}} \)\(\newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\) \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\) \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \(\newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\) \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\) \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)\(\newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\), Chris Johnson, Matthew D. Affolter, Paul Inkenbrandt, & Cam Mosher, Enough mass to have gravitational forces that force it to be rounded, Large enough to be in a cleared orbit, free of other planetesimals that should have been incorporated at the time the planet formed. The formation of terrestrial planets, comets, and asteroids involved disintegration, heating, melting, and solidification. This theory was proposed in 1796 by Kant and Laplace. An Enlightening Compendium Excerpts From - The Enlightenment A Secular Mini-Journal for Inquiring Minds e By Donald A. Hatch Table of Contents Introduction Imagine By John To early observers with low-resolution telescopes, M27 and subsequently discovered planetary nebulae somewhat resembled the gas giants, and William Herschel, the discoverer of Uranus, eventually coined the term 'planetary nebula' for them, although, as we now know, they are very different from planets. Jeans, in 1931, divided the various models into two groups: those where the material for planet formation came from the Sun, and those where it did not and may be concurrent or consecutive. A collision happened and huge amount of . The bodies involved in Encounter Hypothesis are: (a) The Sun which formed the tidal cloud of terrestrial planets, (b) The Rogue Star which formed the tidal cloud of Jovian planets, both resulting from the encounter with each other. The nebular hypothesis is the possible explanation for how the Sun, the Earth, and the rest of the solar system formed approximately 4.6 billion years ago out of the . In addition to both being proposed in the 20th century, these hypotheses both involve a passing star. He refers to his model as "indivisible" meaning that the fundamental aspects of Earth are connected logically and causally and can be deduced from its early formation as a Jupiter-like giant. Encounter theory proposed that the planets were formed from material ejected from the sun or a companion star when it had an encounter with another object. As our solar system formed, the nebular cloud of dispersed particles developed distinct temperature zones. The protoplanet hypothesis is a scientific theory that explains the early stages of planetary formation in our solar system. The Nebular hypothesis and the Protoplanet hypothesis both involve the law of conservation of momentum. Ptolemy believed that all the planets revolved around the earth, the earth was the center of the universe. You also probably know that planets other than our own have moons, and the way to test to see whether or not something is true is by experimenting. [8] Today, comets are known to be far too small to have created the Solar System in this way. For the solar capture theory, see this article's section on Solar System formation. The formation of the solar system: a protoplanet theory. The material in the cloud was in a state of supersonic turbulence, treated as though it were composed of floccules. Ray Lyttleton modified the hypothesis by showing that a third body was not necessary and proposing that a mechanism of line accretion, as described by Bondi and Hoyle in 1944, enabled cloud material to be captured by the star (Williams and Cremin, 1968, loc. In 1900, Forest Moulton showed that the nebular hypothesis was inconsistent with observations because of the angular momentum. Their size is also dramatically different for two reasons: First, the original planetary nebula contained more gases and ices than metals and rocks. a. Horizontal velocity changes through time. what's the difference and similarity between Nebular, Protoplanet, and For example, lead has a higher atomic weight than gold, but is far more common; besides, hydrogen and helium (elements 1 and 2) are virtually ubiquitous, yet lithium and beryllium (elements 3 and 4) are extremely rare.[47]. Second, the stronger gravitational pull of these giant planets allowed them to collect large quantities of hydrogen and helium, which could not be collected by the weaker gravity of the smaller planets. The solar system has about 181 moons which orbit around the planets in the solar system. Similarities of protoplanet and nebular and encounter hypothesis - Brainly Akari - theories - Theories Proponent/ Year Claim Objections Encounter a. The solar nebula hypothesis predicts that all planets will form exactly in the ecliptic plane. Whereas, in protoplanet Hypothesis we get to know the present solar system and universe working. While most of the material would have fallen back, part of it would remain in orbit. A major difficulty was that, in this supposition, turbulent dissipation took place over the course of a single millennium, which did not give enough time for planets to form. . It is one of the theories that explain how the planets were formed. Origin of the Solar System. (3) Besides the sun, there was another star termed as 'intruding star' in . Moulton and Chamberlin in 1904 originated the planetesimal hypothesis. The cloud began to spin because of the gravity. Copernicus heliocentric model explained that the planets sometimes move backwards by coming up with the idea that Earth and all the other planets circled the sun. formation and evolution of the Solar System, Formation and evolution of the Solar System, ChamberlinMoulton planetesimal hypothesis, Learn how and when to remove this template message, "A survey of theories relating to the origin of the solar system", http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1999JHA.3025S, "The capture theory and planetary condensation", Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, "Meta Research (Innovative astronomy research)", "Unusual Theories of How the Solar System Was Formed", "Birth of the planets: The Earth and its fellow planets may be survivors from a time when planets ricocheted around the Sun like ball bearings on a pinball table", "Formation of Protoplanet Systems and Diversity of Planetary Systems", "Planet Quest, Terrestrial Planet Finder", "Hubble Probes Layer-cake Structure of Alien World's Atmosphere", "Life, Bent Chains, and the Anthropic Principle", The orbit and the masses of 40 Eridani BC, Astrometric study of four visual binaries, How Degenerate Stars Came to be Known as White Dwarfs, On the relation between the masses and luminosities of the stars, The Development of the Quantum Mechanical Electron Theory of Metals: 190028, "Formation of the Galilean Satellites: Conditions of Accretion", "Capture of Irregular Satellites during Planetary Encounters", https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Solar_System_formation_and_evolution_hypotheses&oldid=1151949038, This page was last edited on 27 April 2023, at 06:58. Possible processes that cause the migration include orbital friction while the protoplanetary disk is still full of hydrogen and helium gas[39] E-SCI 11 - 5. theories of the formation of the solar system - Quizlet The solar system contains eight known planets which are Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune. What's the difference and similarity between Nebular, Protoplanet, and Encounter hypothesis? The nebula then had an uneven distribution of gasses. Archive Woolfson[28] recognized monistic models, which included Laplace, Descartes, Kant, and Weizscker, and dualistic models, which included Buffon, Chamberlin-Moulton, Jeans, Jeffreys, and Schmidt-Lyttleton. As the six were fluid, they left no trace. It also does not provide a solution to the angular momentum problem or explain lunar formation and other very basic characteristics of the Solar System.[5]. Although these hypotheses have multiple connections and contrasts this comparison shows that they share fewer similarities than. Exposition-Banner. Intl. Immanuel Kant developed the nebular theory and was published in the universal natural history and theory of the heavens in 1755. Solid planets fissioned off only one moon, and Mercury was a moon of Venus but drifted away as a result of the Sun's gravitational influence. Jacot explained the differences between inner and outer planets and inner and outer moons through vortex behavior. Solved compare and contrast nebular hypothesis and | Chegg.com Kepler held similar beliefs t Copernicus, and believed that the reason why a god-created universe only had six planets instead of seven was based on Platos idea of the five Platonic Solids. [58] Eddington, however, wondered what would happen when this plasma cooled and the energy which kept the atoms ionized was no longer present. Our Original Solar System-a 21st Century Perspective. [8][29] Prentice also suggested that the young Sun transferred some angular momentum to the protoplanetary disc and planetesimals through supersonic ejections understood to occur in T Tauri stars. The law of conservation of angular momentum caused the sphere to spin faster. The gravity continued to grow stronger until it collapsed from the force. What Is A Protoplanet Hypothesis? That is why the gas-giant planets Jupiter and Saturn are composed of mostly hydrogen and helium gas, more than 90%. However, Pierre-Simon Laplace refuted this idea in 1796, stating that any planets formed in such a way would eventually crash into the Sun. Stage 1 Birth is where gravity contracts the cloud and the temperature rises, becoming a protostar. The magnetic field strength would have to have been 1 gauss. There are several different hypotheses that were proposed on how the solar system was created. This temperature differentiation resulted in the inner four planets of the solar system becoming rocky, and the outer four planets becoming gas giants. The Protoplanet Hypothesis. Many also claim that much of the material from the impactor would have ended up in the Moon, meaning that the isotope levels would be different, but they are not. Just like the Nebular hypothesis, the Protoplanet hypothesis has some problems too. A review of the capture hypothesis of planet formation can be found in.[17]. [54], White dwarfs were found to be extremely dense soon after their discovery. The planets continued to grow over the course of many thousands or millions of years, as material from the protoplanetary disc was added. In these cases, the smaller moons exploded because of tidal stresses, leaving the four component belts of the two major planetoid zones. The revised theory, known as the protoplanet hypothesis, was first proposed in 1944 by C. F. von Weizsacker and modified by Gerald P. Kuiper. The Planetesimal Hypothesis. [8][30] However, his contention that such formation would occur in toruses or rings has been questioned, as any such rings would disperse before collapsing into planets.[8]. model largely supplanted the idea. In the 1840s, astronomers J. R. Mayer and J. J. Waterson first proposed that the Sun's massive weight would cause it to collapse in on itself, generating heat. The Sun, though it contains almost 99.9 percent of the system's mass, contains just 1 percent of its angular momentum,[9] meaning that the Sun should be spinning much more rapidly. Both rocky and gaseous planets started with a solid core.