Updated date:

Transformation and Derivative Hypotheses For Planetary Evolution

transformation-and-derivitive-hypotheses-for-planetary-evolution

Transformation and Derivative Hypotheses for Planetary Evolution

Google, "Scientists observe planetary formation" and find claims of the evidence of planets being formed.

"Scientists Have Observed a Planet Forming For The First Time Ever "
"Observing the formation of planets with Molecular Spectroscopy"
"Observing planet formation at close range: Gemini Planet Imager’s view of the TW Hya disk"
"Peering into the heart of planet formation"
"Observing the birth of a planet"

There are also grand plans in the works to watch planets being born.

The Planet Formation Imager project guys are planning on observing planets form based on the accretion disk, or Nebular hypothesis. For them it is a forgone conclusion:

"Observing planet formation processes around nearby stars at mid-IR wavelengths.

"The formation of planetary systems from large rotating disks of gas and dust around young stars is one of the most fascinating and debated topics in contemporary astrophysics. A full understanding of the physics involved with planet formation can only be achieved using direct observational techniques."

They believe that observation of planetary disk accretion will prove planetary disk accretion.

In all the cases above, they are observing and testing theories, neither which have anything to do with science. Whether using molecular spectroscopy or diffraction-limited, coronagraphic near-infrared imaging, or just data mining random butt nuggets, these guys are looking for and therefore finding confirmation of their failed theories. NONE of these include explanations for spherical formation or differentiation.

Ignoring that, by their own account, it takes millions of years for a planet to form by disk accretion. Planets are not actually seen, but inferred by data analysis of differential coronagraphic imaging, molecular spectroscopy, infra red imaging, star wobble, etc., However, let's ask a simple question: "What does observing have to do with science?"

I repeatedly observed the following, and this was also corroborated by my associate Mrs. Mind, proving the existence of alien visitation to my back yard:

The food in my dog's bowl repeatedly disappeared over night. Fido was inside, The snow around the bowl and surrounding area showed absolutely no sign of disturbance, proving that visiting aliens are beaming up the dog food. I further suggest that they must be from Canis major, the Dog Star!

Observation is extra-scientific. Observation is what leads us to science, but it ends at the method of inquiry and explanation. Fortunately, while we are limited in bandwidth due to the nature of our sensory system, we are unlimited in our ability to conceive of concepts.

We observe the sun rise in the east and settle in the west, This makes us wonder ...? We hypothesize, theorize and then conclude, orbiting spheres.


On the other hand, astrologers started with a hypothesis, the nebular hypothesis, and THEN they looked for evidence, proof, corroboration, and so forth. Others repeat their experiments and the hypotheses become theories.

Let's take a look at two competing planetary hypotheses.

Planetary evolution hypotheses such as Transformation Hypothesis (TH) and Nebular Hypothesis (NH) are two quite different ways of looking at planetary and star formation: Transformation and derivative.

Let's put Anthony Abruzzo's Transformation hypothesis and Descartes - Oparin - Wolinsky Stellar Metamorphosis Hypothesis (SMH) in one camp and Nebular Hypothesis with its Disk Accretion or Circumstellar Disks, protoplanetary hypothesis, etc. in the other.

TH and SMH explain "sphericality" and differentiation, whereas NH does not. However good a transformation hypothesis of "one star one planet" is, there is still some inherent irrationality that needs to be eliminated.

Transformation Hypothesis still clings to irrational proposals such as matter creation and proton decay annihilation, and Stellar Metamorphosis has it's electrostatic attraction and space plasma nonsense.

I've written a few chapters about these and looked at the history and development of the ideas, comparing and contrasting them in Rational Science Vol. V. Let's take a closer look at these two opposing ideas, and I hope to cover these with the luxury of detail in the future.

Here are several areas of debate:

  • Planets spinning the opposite direction from their sun are consistent with transformation hypothesis. Nebular Hypothesis can not explain why the sun's axis is 7 degrees off the ecliptic when it should be the same as it's planets.
  • Our sun's spin is too slow, based on its angular momentum. The sun's mass being 99 percent of the solar system and 2 percent of the angular momentum, it is opposite what is predicted by nebular hypothesis.
  • Gas expands, it does not coalesce. No star could have formed from a cloud smaller than a globular cluster.

These may be problematic for Big Bang Theory and nebular hypothesis proponents but likely do not pose the same issues for transformation hypothesis.

Proponents of Nebular hypothesis, I call them disk heads, will tell you that the sun's axial tilt poses no problem for their theories, and call upon cataclysm, aka, "The Giant Impact Theory."

Other's will say that "axial tilt" is an "earth-based" reference system and that a more useful way of looking at solar system formation is with the "invariable plane."

What is axial tilt and invariable plane, and what are the arguments all about?

Axial tilt, AKA obliquity, is "the angle between an object's rotational axis and its orbital axis." These may also be referred to as equitorial plane and orbital plane.

Zero obliquity means the planet or star's rotational axis is perpendicular to it's orbital plane. In other words, it's equator is pointing in the same direction it is traveling in its orbit (both axis point in the same direction).

Currently, Earth tilts on its axis around 23 degrees but its obliquity varies approximately between 21 and 24 degrees over a 40 thousand year cycle.

Astrologers from the International Astronomical Union (IAU) use two standards when referring to tilt:

The invariable plane and the right hand rule. Referring to the invariable plane, Venus tilts 3 degrees along the ecliptical plane and is retrograde (spins backwards from the rest of the planets in the solar system). Looking at Venus by referring to the right hand rule, Venus is upside down, or tilted 177 degrees.

There are lots of cockamanie ideas used to "explain" the sun's tilt, for example, recently, Caltech Astrologer, Michael Brown, claims Planet Nine could be causing the sun to tilt. After all, the good shepard is herding dwarf planets and tilting them on their sides out past Neptune. Caltech astrologers claim It may explain all kinds of things that are happening in the SS. Typical, when things don't conform to one's theory, don't erase the whiteboard and start over, just ad hoc it!

Earth's axis is on a tilt because, Theia collided with it, knocking it off a perfect axis and created our moon. Well, that's a good thing because otherwise we wouldn't have such nice weather! All Hail God Titan!

With all kinds of cataclysmic events like this it's no wonder the planets' axes are all catywompass. These ideas of catacylsmic events follow from the defunct, irrational and impossible Big Bang Creation Theory.

Of course, there are exceptions when planets become tidally locked like Mercury resulting in a situation that can't be called an axial tilt since it's rotation and orbit are in sync.

So, if the planets in the solar system were formed at the same time then one would expect the sun's axis to be perpendicular to the ecliptic, and all the planets neatly
orbiting and revolving (nearly) identically. Why all these different tilts?

We mentioned Theia, and Planet Nine. There's also wild claims of planets like Venus being flipped over on its back, so that it really never changed its direction of rotation. But there is also the contention that referring to the 7 degree tilt is not a good reference point since it is looking at the Solar System from an Earth centric viewpoint.

A better reference point, we are told, would be the invariable plane. This is a plane that cuts through the entire solar system's barycenter (center of mass) and this IS
perpendicular to its angular momentum.

This way, the sun still has a tilt of 5.6 degrees, but now it has less than 2 percent of the SS angular momentum. Also, the Earth and the gas giants, then, are all inclined at around 1 degree to the invariable plane where we find most of the angular momentum.

There is no good explanation for why the invariable plane and the sun's equatorial plane are so different, unless one buys into Big Bang Theory and Giant Cataclysms. Also, averaging the angular momentum of the solar system has different connotations
for systems whether they are deriviative or transformational.

There are other discussions about rapidly spinning planets, nebular condensation and quadrapole gravitational force fields, but none of these explain differentiation and
sphericality.

It's old news that the sun spins slower than "predicted." The good news is, this did make astrologers stop and ponder where they went wrong.

This decade's brilliant sun gazers have a new hypothesis and think that it would not only apply to our sun, but to all of them. According to Jeff Khun of Hawaii, speaking of the 70km thick outer "layer" of the sun spinning more slowly than the interior and slowing down: “This is surprising because it isn’t understood from the physics of convection and turbulence...”

Well, it turns out it is the water sprinkler effect that is responsible for this previously thought stable portion of the sun slowing down. The light particles that are being sprayed out out like little tiny beads of water are producing a torque which is slowing the sun's spin down.

NASA used their Solar Dynamics Observatory satellite to measure the rate of the sun's spin and calculated rotational speed noting how acoustic waves traveled from the surface to the core and back to the surface of the sun.

Based on viscosity and other factors, eventually, the interior will slow down as well, they imagine. Of course, the viscosity required is not what their data tells them it actually is, but, they suggest that turbulence could increase it. I've had turbulence before, and, they really did slow me down!

Scott McIntosh, director of the High Altitude Observatory at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Hawaii, made this glaring statement: “The work presents an
interesting hypothesis about how the Sun reached its current condition that only millennia of further observation can truly validate.”

How convenient!

So, we have these massless energetic photon droplets carrying away angular momentum from the sun into space.

The sun is also moving slower than thought. It appears the giant shock wave on the edge of what is known as the heliopause is not there!

The shock wave was predicted, because, like a super sonic jet creating a sonic boom by pushing air in front of it, the sun pushes a giant bubble of magnetic and highly charged particles that can't get out of the way fast enough and this results in the "Bow Shock."

Space cadets have seen these before out in space in plasma around stars (called astrospheres). Unfortunately, the sun apparently moves too slow (7000mph slower) to
create these giant solar sonic booms. But that's OK, as everyone knows you can't hear the sun yell in space.

What about Venus? What do these brilliant minds have to say about the retrograde rotation of Mars? It's rotation is so slow that its year is actually shorter than its day! It is by far the slowest planet in the solar system and it's not tidally locked to anything.

It does appear to have something in common with the sun: it's atmosphere (outer layer) spins slower than the rest of the planet. What are some "explanations" for these odd behaviors of Venus?

One theory for why the planet rotates the "wrong" direction is that it got flipped over. How? Was it hit by another planet or comet or something? Nope. The sun's gravity pulled in Venuses dense atmosphere and caused atomospheric tides. Along with friction between the planet's mantle and core, this caused Venus to flip! Of course, say others, the planet could have simply slowed, stopped and flipped because of the same tidal effects other planets experience. But, in addition to that, radar has shown that Venus has slowed over the last couple of decades to a point six and a half minutes slower. Wassup wit dat?

Researchers say it could be an exchange of angular momentum with the earth, but who knows? Yeah, who knows?!

Mercury rotates faster than predicted. Mining data from the Messenger has sayentists thinking that the sun AND Jupiter are affecting Mercury's spin and its orbit as well.

Reeeeeally? Since all planets are gravitationally bound to each other, should it be surprising that they influence each other?

Mercury's rotational speed is around 9 seconds faster than previously thought (read predicted by their mathematical models).

The Mars Climate Orbiter spacecraft recorded lot's of data before crashing into the surface of Merc, and by gleaming info from that analysts note that the little red ball of mud rotates less than smoothly and has fluctuations over its cycle of its year (88 days).
Well, it's an oblong planet traveling an elliptical orbit, so what do you expect? None the less, superimposed on top of Mercury's 88 day cycle one should find Jupiter's 12 year "libration" (er...oscillation) we are told.

Of course, researchers admit, there could be a number of other influences behind the slowing of Mercury. A spokesperson said this to our reporter, MonkEmind, " This is, by no means, the only random butt nugget we have plucked from our ass."

OK, well, there are some of the problems for the Nebular Hypothesis folks to work out. There's also Pluto and Charon....There are variations, such as the Pebble Theory of planet formation ...but how are mountain sized or pebble sized (really boulder sized), or any size objects formed? Ether glue? Electrostatics? Gravity? AND as always, how do they explain differentiation and sphericality?

We'll take a deeper look into Nebular Hypothesis.

https://hubpages.com/education/Transformation-and-Derivative-Hypotheses-Part-Two

Comments

monkeyminds (author) from My Tree House on February 07, 2018:

Come on by The Rational Science facebook group to discuss this with the luxury of detail.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/RationalScientific...