Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a234f67f8b9c0acb

Jump to content

Talk:Protoplanet

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 16 days ago by Makemathpagesgood! in topic Mention of Chamberlain-Moulton hypothesis?

Mention of Chamberlain-Moulton hypothesis?

[edit]

A bit into the first section it says "According to the Chamberlin–Moulton planetesimal hypothesis and the theories of Viktor Safronov, a protoplanetary disk of materials such as gas and dust would orbit a star early in the formation of a planetary system." I'm confused by the mention of the Chamberlin-Moulton hypothesis as when you look at that page, it seems it is no longer the accepted theory. Wouldn't it be better to cut the mentions of it entirely? Makemathpagesgood! (talk) 00:02, 14 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

dwarf planets?

[edit]

Are protoplanets also dwarf planets? 198.151.130.31 (talk) 03:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

It would seem so. Internal differentiation would imply hydrostatic equilibrium. But the context is different: formation of the Solar system vs. current geology.
Hm, I take that back. You could perhaps have partial differention without full equilibrium. Also, what about a case like Vesta, which was (presumably) once in equilibrium, but no longer is? It's a protoplanet, but is it a DP? — kwami (talk) 00:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
Going out on a limb, I would say all dwarf planets are proto-planets, but not all proto-planets are dwarf planets?! -- Kheider (talk) 00:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
Do we even know enough to say? The current definition of pp's would probably make them all dp's, but the current definition does not include Ceres. — kwami (talk) 00:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
Vesta and Pallas are proto-planets, but not accepted as dwarf planets. I will be very curious to see what we learn of Vesta's interior and crust. -- Kheider (talk) 02:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Definition

[edit]

The definition of a 'protoplanet' gives a size and mass range much larger than the Main-Belt protoplanets given as examples. — kwami (talk) 22:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Planetary embryo

[edit]

Planetary embryo redirects here. According to this report, Mars is a planetary embryo. Should it be mentioned here? 65.94.44.141 (talk) 06:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it should. What is a protoplanet might be in flux, but somebody said that "Mars is different, it is a protoplanet". Or maybe an "oligarch". Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 23:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
Space.Com: Mars Formed Fast in Massive Early Growth Spurt says
These findings suggest that Mars was a protoplanet that escaped merging with its siblings.
and still is, of course. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 15:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

asteroids

[edit]

With so much Fe-Ni on the surface, it seems pretty likely that 9 Metis is also the core of a disrupted protoplanet like 16 Psyche. Its article at least appears to say so. Double sharp (talk) 23:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

OK, added Metis (sourced). Double sharp (talk) 23:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)Reply