David Calder Hardy's Cosmology

GENESIS CONTINUOUS - REFERENCE MATERIAL

I feel that all the greatest brains in the world over the last few hundred years have pondered this question and have all failed to present a completely acceptable solution. Every theory has its drawbacks; impossibilities, unlikelies, miracles to fill in gaps, extraneous events to trigger or provide something that could not happen on its own. All in all, one would think that it would be impossible to understand the universe if our own little solar-system's origin is still a mystery to us.

Below are various views on this subject and I think that they leave a lot to be clarified. Also there is an article on other asteroid belts, one of which is between Mercury and the sun, just where I thought there should be one back in 1973. My original source of this information was the 1995 Microsoft Encarta encyclopedia. There are experts who have not heard of this other ring of solids.

Genesis Continuous relies upon other problematic data that needs to be solved and I would appreciate any help on this subject, which is, that material ejected from the sun cannot go into orbit around the sun. It would either fall back into the sun or escape into space. The reason being is that besides the ejection thrust there also has to be a lateral thrust applied once the material has reached its height above the sun's surface.

Science gives us information about the composition of stars and planets by analyzing their light source or reflective emission. I do not know how they can tell what elements are below the surface let alone deep inside these bodies. I would love to know.

Our sun is considered too small to have created all the known elements and that our planets have collected them from a mass of fragments blasted our way from a large exploded star. (see the first paragraph above).

Genesis Continuous explains most of the problems inherent with other theories. :- It offers a simple yet reasonable explanation for the progressive planetary orbits in Bode's Law. No other theory does that. It suggests that Mars is 2 billion years older than Earth and the characteristics of its surface and atmosphere confirm that. No other theory does that. It shows further, that Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars demonstrate an evolutionary time sequence. Each one being 2 billion years older than its inner neighbour. No other theory does that. It gives the reason why Neptune and Pluto appear to be almost at the outer limits of the sun's gravitational hold and they appear almost ready to slip away into space. No other theory explains how Neptune and Pluto could have formed out in the orbits they occupy, Neither does Genesis Continuous, which says that they weren't formed a way out there at all. I say that the sun is ever so much older than science says and that originally it was very much larger than now and it contained all the known elements.

According to Science our sun is about 5 or 6 billion years old and is expected to die in a supernovae explosion in another 5 or 6 billion years. Is this telling us that the life expectency of ordinary stars like ours is about 11 billion years? The supernovae that science says triggered the collapse of our gas nebular 5 or six billion years ago, was of a star that had supposedly reached the grand old age of about 11 billion years. 11 plus 5 = 16 billion years since the triggering star was born.!!!!! But, hey! according to the experts it was only 16 billion years ago that the 'Big Bang' occured.

Whilst Science presents its foundational data in a realm of higher mathematics designed, I suppose, to confuse us mere mortals, it seems amazing that simple arithmetic has been ignored over this and other obviously improbable beliefs.

I hope that one day a newly qualified astrophysisist throws out all the old textbooks and uses his brain to rebuild the universe in a simple and logical manner. The obvious is easier to deal with than trying to explain a sequence of events that have an illogocal foundation. And that is what 'The fixed orbits' scenario offers us.
 

I have changed some of the text below to red in order to stress those particular points.
 

Royal Observatory, Greenwich
http://www.rog.nmm.ac.uk/leaflets/solar_system/Sun.html

What is the Sun?

The diameter of the Sun is 1,400,000 km (840,000 miles) which is more than 100 times the diameter of the Earth. Its mass is more than 300,000 times that of the Earth. The Sun is a very hot gaseous body composed of nearly 75% hydrogen, 25% helium, less than 1% oxygen and all the other elements constituting less than 1%. (What other elements)? Its surface temperature is about 6,000° C.

The source of energy in the Sun is the fusion of hydrogen nuclei (protons) into helium nuclei. In this process a small amount of mass is lost and transformed into energy. This nuclear reaction can only take place in the very hot (15,000,000°C) and dense center of the Sun. The Sun loses half a million tons every second in this destruction of mass to give energy but will maintain its present output of energy for about 5,000 million years.

For this long period of time the Sun is called a main-sequence star but eventually the hydrogen in the center will all have been converted into helium. The balance between the force of gravity pulling all the Sun's mass towards its center, and the force due to the energy in the Sun which pushes matter outwards, will then be upset. The center will contract and become even hotter while the outer part will expand and become cooler. The Sun will then be brighter, cooler and bigger -- a red giant star. Ultimately all sources of energy production will come to an end and the Sun will collapse to become a very small hot object called a white dwarf. Others claim it will blow up....

---

http://www.rog.nmm.ac.uk/leaflets/solar_system/section3.3.html

The Origin of the Solar System
 

The problems to be faced by any theory for the formation of the Solar System  | The Accretion theory  | The Protoplanet theory  | The Capture theory  | The Modern Laplacian theory | The Modern Nebular theory  | Conclusion  | Further information

The earliest accounts of how the Sun, the Earth and the rest of the Solar System were formed are to be found in early myths, legends and religious texts. None of these can be considered a serious scientific account.

The earliest scientific attempts to explain the origin of the solar system invoked collisions or condensations from a gas cloud. The discovery of `island universes', which we now know to be galaxies, was thought to confirm this latter theory.

During this century Jeans proposed the idea that material had been dragged out of the Sun by a passing star and that this material had then condensed to form the planets. There are serious flaws to this explanation but recent developments have been made suggesting that a filament was drawn out of a passing protostar at a time when the Sun was a member of a loose cluster of stars but the most favoured theories still involve the gravitational collapse of a gas and dust cloud.

The problems to be faced by any theory for the formation of the Solar System

Any theory has to account for certain rather tricky facts about the Solar System. These are in addition to the obvious facts that the Sun is at the center with the planets in orbit around it. There are 5 of these problem areas.

1. The Sun spins slowly and only has 1 percent of the angular momentum of the Solar System but 99.9 percent of its mass. The planets carry the rest of the angular momentum.

2. The formation of the terrestrial planets with solid cores.

3. The formation of the gaseous giant planets.

4. The formation of planetary satellites.

5. An explanation of Bode's law which states that the distances of the planets from the Sun follow a simple arithmetic progression.

(Bode's `law takes the form of a series in which the first term is 0, the second is 3 and each term is then double the previous one, to each term add 4 and divide the result by 10. This yields the series of numbers,

0.4, 0.7, 1.0, 1.6, 2.8, 5.2, 10.0, 19.6, 38.8;

which may be compared to the mean distances of the planets from the Sun in AU,

0.39, 0.72, 1.0, 1.52, 5.2, 9.52, 19.26, 30.1, 39.8.

The agreement for all but Neptune and Pluto is remarkable. The lack of a planet at 2.8 led to the discovery of the asteroids.)

There are 5 theories which are still considered to be `reasonable that they explain many (but not all) of the phenomena exhibited by the solar system.

The Accretion theory

This assumes that the Sun passed through a dense interstellar cloud and emerged surrounded by a dusty, gaseous envelope. It thus separates the formation of the Sun from that of the planets thus losing problem 1.

The problem which remains is that of getting the cloud to form the planets. The terrestrial planets can form in a reasonable time but the gaseous planets take far too long to form. The theory does not explain satellites or Bode's law and must be considered the weakest of those described here.

The Protoplanet theory

This assumes that initially there is a dense interstellar cloud which will eventually produce a cluster of stars. Dense regions in the cloud form and coalesce; as the small blobs have random spins the resulting stars will have a low rotation rates. The planets are smaller blobs captured by the star. The small blobs would have higher rotation than is seen in the planets but the theory accounts for this by having the `planetary blobs' split to give a planet and satellites.

Thus many of the problem areas are covered but it is not clear how the planets came to be confined to a plane or why their rotations are in the same sense.

The Capture theory

This theory is a version of Jeans's theory in which the Sun interacts with a nearby protostar dragging a filament of material from the protostar. The low rotation speed of the Sun is explained as being due to its formation before the planets, the terrestrial planets are explained by collisions between the protoplanets close to the Sun and the giant planets and their satellites are explained as condensations in the drawn out filament.

The Modern Laplacian theory

Laplace in 1796 first suggested that the Sun and the planets formed in a rotating nebula which cooled and collapsed. It condensed into rings which eventually formed the planets and a central mass which became the Sun. The slow spin of the Sun could not be explained.

The modern version assumes that the central condensation contains solid dust grains which create drag in the gas as the centre condenses. Eventually, after the core has been slowed its temperature rises and the dust is evaporated. The slowly rotating core becomes the Sun. The planets form from the faster rotating cloud.

The Modern Nebular theory

Observations of very young stars indicate that they are surrounded by dense dusty disks. While there are still difficulties in explaining some of the problem areas outlined above, in particular ways to slow down the rotation of the Sun, it is believed that the planets originated in a dense disk which formed from material in the gas and dust cloud which collapsed to give the Sun. The density of this disk has to be sufficient to allow the formation of the planets and yet be thin enough for the residual matter to be blown away by the Sun as its energy output increased. In 1992 the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) obtained the first images of these proto-planetary disks (sometimes shortened to ‘proplyds’) in the Orion nebula.

Some of the Orion proplyds are visible as silhouettes against a background of hot, bright interstellar gas, while others are seen to shine brightly. They are roughly on the same scale as the Solar System and lend strong support to the nebular theory of its origin.

Conclusion

There have been many attempts to develop theories for the origin of the Solar System. None of them can be described as totally satisfactory and it is possible that there will further developments which may better explain the known facts.

We do believe, however, that we understand the overall mechanism which is that the Sun and the planets formed from the contraction of part of a gas/dust cloud under its own gravitational pull and that the small net rotation of the cloud was responsible for the formation of a disk around the central condensation.

The central condensation eventually formed the Sun while small condensations in the disk formed the planets and their satellites. The energy from the young Sun blew away the remaining gas and dust leaving the solar system as we see it today.

Links to proplyd images:

http://www.star.ucl.ac.uk/~idh/apod/image/image/orion_hst_big.gif

This is a mosaic of images of the Orion nebula from the Hubble Space Telescope.

http://ftp.seed.org/pub/images/hst/orionProplyds.jpg

A closeup image of a proplyd in the Orion nebula.

http://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/HST/IMAGES/OriProp4.gif

4 images of proplyds in the Orion nebula.
 

Further information:

*
 

Produced by the Astronomy Information Service of the Royal Observatory Greenwich
PJA Thu Apr 18 10:43:06 GMT 1996
Revised - Robert Massey.
Last modified - 3 August, 2000

---

http://www.nineplanets.org/origin.html
Appendix 4:

The Origin of the Solar System
by Frank Crary, CU Boulder
 

Here is a brief outline of the current theory of the events in the early history of the solar system:
 

1. A cloud of interstellar gas and/or dust (the "solar nebula") is disturbed and collapses under its own gravity. The disturbance could be, for example, the shock wave from a nearby supernova. (Why the shockwave, if it collapsed under its own gravity DCH).

2. As the cloud collapses, it heats up and compresses in the center. It heats enough for the dust to vaporize. The initial collapse is supposed to take less than 100,000 years.

3. The center compresses enough to become a protostar (What has the gas changed into DCH)? and the rest of the gas orbits/flows around it. Most of that gas flows inward and adds to the mass of the forming star, but the gas is rotating. The centrifugal force from that prevents some of the gas from reaching the forming star. Instead, it forms an "accretion disk" around the star. The disk radiates away its energy and cools off.

4. First brake point. Depending on the details, the gas orbiting star/protostar may be unstable and start to compress under its own gravity. That produces a double star. If it doesn't ...

5. The gas cools off enough for the metal, rock and (far enough from the forming star) ice to condense out into tiny particles. (i.e. some of the gas turns back into dust). The metals condense almost as soon as the accretion disk forms (4.55-4.56 billion years ago according to isotope measurements of certain meteors); the rock condenses a bit later (between 4.4 and 4.55 billion years ago).

6. The dust particles collide with each other and form into larger particles. (Can't swallow that one DCH). This goes on until the particles get to the size of boulders or small asteroids. (What is the glue holding these things together DCH)?

7. Run away growth. Once the larger of these particles get big enough to have a nontrivial gravity, their growth accelerates. Their gravity (even if it's very small) gives them an edge over smaller particles; it pulls in more, smaller particles, and very quickly, the large objects have accumulated all of the solid matter close to their own orbit. How big they get depends on their distance from the star and the density and composition of the protoplanetary nebula. In the solar system, the theories say that this is large asteroid to lunar size in the inner solar system, and one to fifteen times the Earth's size in the outer solar system. There would have been a big jump in size somewhere between the current orbits of Mars and Jupiter: the energy from the Sun would have kept ice a vapor at closer distances, so the solid, accretable matter would become much more common beyond a critical distance from the Sun. The accretion of these "planetesimals" is believed to take a few hundred thousand to about twenty million years, with the outermost taking the longest to form. (Many meteorites are heavily crystalline, indicating that they were once molten and took a long time to cool down DCH)?

8. Two things and the second brake point. How big were those protoplanets and how quickly did they form? At about this time, about 1 million years after the nebula cooled, the star would generate a very strong solar wind, which would sweep away all of the gas left in the protoplanetary nebula. If a protoplanet was large enough, soon enough, its gravity would pull in the nebular gas, and it would become a gas giant. If not, it would remain a rocky or icy body.

9. At this point, the solar system is composed only of solid, protoplanetary bodies and gas giants. The "planetesimals" would slowly collide with each other and become more massive. (Would some of the smaller moons still be an accumulation of these rocks, where their total mass would not have caused the centre to become molten, and are the asteroids of the Asteroid belt in this category DCH)?

10. Eventually, after ten to a hundred million years, you end up with ten or so planets, in stable orbits, and that's a solar system. These planets and their surfaces may be heavily modified by the last, big collision they experience (e.g. the largely metal composition of Mercury or the Moon).

Note: this was the theory of planetary formation as it stood before the discovery of extrasolar planets. The discoveries don't match what the theory predicted. That could be an observational bias (odd solar systems may be easier to detect from Earth) or problems with the theory (probably with subtle points, not the basic outline.)

---

http://www.chron.com/content/interactive/space/astronomy/news/1999/solarsys/990505.html

May 5, 1999, 1:00 p.m.

Scientists pinpoint near-Earth asteroid belt
LONDON (Reuters) - British astronomers have calculated the position of a possible near-Earth asteroid belt that could increase the possibility of a disastrous collision.

N. Wyn Evans and Serge Tabachnik of Oxford University said the heavenly bodies could orbit anywhere under the right conditions, even quite near Earth.

Although the research published in the science journal Nature Wednesday is theoretical, the scientists said objects recently had been discovered in the near-Earth asteroid belt.

"These near-Earth objects are a mixture of objects ejected from the main (asteroid) belt and possibly primordial objects, too," Evans said in a telephone interview.

"There is a possibility that they may, at some point, come close to the Earth," he added.

The researchers used numerical simulations of stability zones in the inner Solar System to pinpoint areas, other than the two known belts, where asteroids might orbit without being perturbed by the gravity of the other planets.

(Here it is). One is a narrow band between the Sun and Mercury. The other is between Earth and Mars, but much closer to Earth.

"Just as the asteroid belt has certain locations where the belt is unstable, so these primordial belts will have locations where some of the objects will be unstable. Some of these objects may be kicked into Earth-crossing orbits," Evans said.

Asteroids are defined as pieces of space debris a kilometer, or about six-tenths of a mile, or more in diameter, and scientists estimate the chances of such a body smashing into Earth would be about one in 100,000 years. But if one did, it could kill a quarter of the world's population, they say.

A collision 60 million years ago is thought to have wiped out the dinosaurs and many of the planet's other plants and animals by changing the global climate.

Scientists have called for the establishment of a global monitoring system using six telescopes set up around the globe to track near-Earth asteroids and predict any possible collisions with our planet.

"What we'd like is a complete inventory of all the objects that lie between the Earth and Mars," said Evans. "Once we have, for example, their position and their velocities, we can simulate with the computer to see if those objects are likely to come close to the Earth within the next few thousand or million years." Search this site

mailto:David Hardy

Genesis Continuous - Complete

Homepage