Evolution of our solar system. Scientists and philosophers have been debating our solar system for a couple of Centuries, but the accepted explanation, the Accretion Theory is full of scientific holes, scientific impossibilities and very low-probability assumptions. Even back in the 70s, when I worked at NASA/GSFC and /ARC on imaging satellites programs, I objected to the standard explanation, as commonly accepted by scientists. Oh, some aspects are obviously correct, as in a disk of mostly ices and gases with minuscule particles of heavier elements. After all, the sun and the outer planets are overwhelmingly composed of hydrogen and helium: it is only the inner four planets that are rocky. What I strenuously object to is the implausible assumption that the inner planets started as rocky planetoids, etc., that coalesced into planets. Think for a moment and put pencil to paper and you will verify for yourselves that extremely high-velocity impacts, especially in low-gravity environments, would not accrete, but would shatter and disperse. With these assumptions, we could not build large planets! The scientific evidence, including experiments conducted by astronauts in outer space, are consistent with a first stage of accretion occurring in consequence of attracting electrostatic charges, including in water ices and ices of hydrogen and helium and other elements we commonly consider to be gases. Interestingly, bodies with charges tend to affect nearby bodies by causing the nearest surface to have the opposite charge, thereby having a net attracting force! This simple reality is always ignored! So, these bodies with electrostatic charges could gradually build into fairly substantial masses of mostly frozen ices, especially if they are part of a disk rotating as a unit, in a single direction. Just how large these would become is still speculative, but this explanation fits all the observed facts! Once the sun ignited, then those frozen gases would have melted/vaporized and the bodies would have become gases with rocky cores. The gases around the cores would act as buffers for impacts, such that the impacts of high velocity planetoids would not utterly shatter, but could have a net-growth affect. In reality, we would be talking about analogues of todays gas giants! Most serious scientists agree that the likelihood of a rocky proto-Earth surviving an impact with a rocky high-velocity planetoid the size of Mars (as overwhelming evidence implies) is vanishingly low. It almost certainly would not accrete, but would shatter and disperse if not moderated by a thick atmosphere, which my model here incorporates. So, what happened to the thick blanketing gaseous atmosphere around the four inner planets? Any number of plausible explanations, most involving our sun, would easily explain the disappearance of a former thick atmosphere, leaving our modern-day rocky Earth. This is my hypothesis/theory, in short summary. When I think about the gas giants (Jupiter, Saturn, ...), I always also see the commonly-accepted rocky core, although it is quite possible that for the true gas giants, the rocky core may be also partly composed of metallic hydrogen that is a consequences of extremely high pressures. No problem: if the outer layers of gas were to be stripped off, the innermost metallic hydrogen would evaporate, leaving a true rocky planet. So, the next time you see a TV special about the planets and how they ostensibly grew, think about these specific objections and my alternate explanation which accommodates all the observed, known facts. The conventional explanation (accretion theory of high-velocity rocky bodies) is highly implausible.
Posted on: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 05:10:49 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015