I'm glad to see that for once, someone is willing to clearly state that so far there's no observational evidence to support the nebular theory of planetary formation.Kev, clearly you are delusional as ever. This very article presents observational evidence - 6 exocomets.
just how long the comets have been around and how they can survive to the present for us to observe them since they are simply balls of ice that evaporate everytime they go near their stars?This has been explained to you before, but you suffer from some sort of learning disorder. The comets spend most of their lives in orbits that bring them nowhere near their central star. It's only the rare gravitational or collisional interaction that sends one inwards.
just how long the comets have been around and how they can survive to the present for us to observe them since they are simply balls of ice that evaporate everytime they go near their stars?
kevinrtrs
Jan 8, 2013It raises the issue of just how long the comets have been around and how they can survive to the present for us to observe them since they are simply balls of ice that evaporate everytime they go near their stars? It means there must now be some way for them to be replaced - but how to observe that phenonenom? Unless and until such replacement process can be found, there's big trouble ahead.
I'm glad to see that for once, someone is willing to clearly state that so far there's no observational evidence to support the nebular theory of planetary formation. The sentence following this quoted one in the text is simply wishing it to be true. It doesn't make any difference whatsoever - there just isn't ANY kind of observational evidence to support the theory.