Sunday, April 5, 2015

The Solar System Formation Hypothesis, Stellar Metamorphosis

I hope people don't mind me cutting and pasting from Wikipedia, my words in red, Wikipedia in black.

French philosopher and mathematician René Descartes was the first to propose a model for the origin of the Solar System in his Le Monde (ou Traité de lumière) which he wrote in 1662 and 1663 and for which he delayed publication because of the Inquisition and it was published only after his decease in 1664. In his view, the Universe was filled with vortices of swirling particles and the Sun and planets had condensed from a particularly large vortex that had somehow contracted which explained the circular motion of the planets and was on the right track with condensation and contraction but this was before Newton's theory of gravity and we now know matter does not behave in this fashion.

The Inquisition was presenting a significant challenge to scientists of the time apparently, but probably was headed by opposing scientist. The inquisition therefore was probably similar to the modern peer-review system. Inquire, censor then burn at the stake, these days it is inquire, censor then black-list or fire (loss of pay/position).  Notice how they say, "we now know matter does not behave in this fashion".

The vortex model of 1944,[3] formulated by German physicist and philosopher Baron Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker, which harkens back to the Cartesian model, involved a pattern of turbulence-induced eddies in a Laplacian nebular disc. In it a suitable combination of clockwise rotation of each vortex and anti-clockwise rotation of the whole system can lead to individual elements moving around the central mass in Keplerian orbits so there would be little dissipation of energy due to the overall motion of the system but material would be colliding at high relative velocity in the inter-vortex boundaries and in these regions small roller-bearing eddies would coalesce to give annular condensations. It was much criticized as turbulence is a phenomenon associated with disorder and would not spontaneously produce the highly ordered structure required by the hypothesis. As well, it does not provide a solution to the angular momentum problem and does not explain lunar formation nor other very basic characteristics of the Solar System.

They continuously focus on rotation. How do we explain why they are orbiting each other, therefore all attention will be on how they formed "as is". The mentality was, "they are orbiting each other now, therefore they must have always been orbiting each other." Should we really question that logic? Stellar arrangements are not permanent, they change.

The Weizsäcker model was modified[3] in 1948 by Dutch theoretical physicist Dirk Ter Haar, in that regular eddies were discarded and replaced by random turbulence which would lead to a very thick nebula where gravitational instability would not occur. He concluded the planets must have formed by accretion and explained the compositional difference (solid and liquid planets) as due to the temperature difference between the inner and outer regions, the former being hotter and the latter being cooler, so only refractories (non-volatiles) condensed in the inner region. A major difficulty is that in this supposition turbulent dissipation takes place in a time scale of only about a millennium which does not give enough time for planets to form.

The "planets" being formed via accretion is obvious. How else do you make a big object? I suppose accretion is the obvious part, but where does this accretion happen? In the vacuum of outer space absent a heat source, a gravitational field and absent pressure? Or inside a star, where there is a heat source, a gravitational field and lots of pressure? Their major difficulty was, and still is WHERE the accretion happens. Does it happen outside of a star, or inside one? They were scratching their heads when no head scratching was required.

The nebular hypothesis was first proposed in 1734 by Emanuel Swedenborg[5] and later elaborated and expanded upon by Immanuel Kant in 1755. A similar theory was independently formulated by Pierre-Simon Laplace in 1796.

Now it does not matter who proposed the nebular hypothesis. Their problem is they have accretion happening outside a body. Stellar Metamorphosis has accretion happening INSIDE a body where the properties of the star facilitate its core formation (planet formation).

In 1749, Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon conceived the idea that the planets were formed when a comet collided with the Sun, sending matter out to form the planets. However, Laplace refuted this idea in 1796, showing that any planets formed in such a way would eventually crash into the Sun. Laplace felt that the near-circular orbits of the planets were a necessary consequence of their formation.[7] Today, comets are known to be far too small to have created the Solar System in this way.

Near circular orbits as a consequence to planet formation is irrelevant. The majority of stars orbit their hosts in elliptical configurations.

In 1755, Immanuel Kant speculated that observed nebulae may in fact be regions of star and planet formation.

This means he took a look at the Andromeda galaxy and thought it was a new solar system being formed, which in turn caused him to believe solar systems are formed in disks. Now we know better, he was actually looking at an ancient galaxy with hundreds of billions of solar systems.

 In 1796, Laplace elaborated by arguing that the nebula collapsed into a star, and, as it did so, the remaining material gradually spun outward into a flat disc, which then formed the planets.

This still does not solve the angular momentum problem. In fact, no modern nebular disk theory can solve it, because they have accretion happening outside a body.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Helpful comments will be appreciated, but if the user does not want to address the issues being presented they will be ignored. This is a blog dedicated to trying to explain how to make sense of the discovery that planet formation is star evolution itself, not a blog for false mainstream beliefs.