ABSTRACT
The current theories and the multiple historical alternatives that have been trying to solve the numerous problems, anomalies and incompatibilities that, with the flow of discoveries, have been added to the Nebular Theory and the gravitational accretion mechanism are examined. New theories are proposed, still considered as "unconventional", although fortunately some steps have been taken in the right direction.
ACCRETION DISK, INESTABILITY AND PLANETESIMAL MODELS PROBLEMS
Leaving aside the electromagnetic phenomena that cannot be explained by gravitational mechanisms, in comets, asteroids, planets, stars, galaxies, and nebulas, we have a bunch of problems related to the composition and dynamics of comets (which are not at all, remains of the supposed protoplanetary disk), and those related to the formation of craters and the event known as 'Late Heavy Bombardment' (LHB). In order not to make this paper excessively long, see the papers named ‘OF THE ORIGIN AND ELECTRICAL OPERATION OF THE COMETS’ and ‘OF THE ELECTRICAL ORIGIN OF THE CRATERS’.
Below we summarize a series of inconsistencies of the orthodox models:
1. Planetesimals destroy themselves in sizes bigger that 1 micron.
2. Protoplanetary gas drift ratio for objects bigger than 1 m is huge, as they get too close to the proto-star in less than 100 years .
3. Moon and Earth:
3.1. Unknown of Moon’s formation (several theories[5])
3.2. A big magnetic field as current Earth’s one is required .
3.3. Lunar crust shift displacement (active geology) .
3.4. The earth's geomagnetic field is influenced by the rotation, by the Moon, the solar cycle, the nutation and the rotation of the galaxy, at least . Experts recognize that “we know more about the surface of the Sun than about the depths of the Earth
3.5. The reasons for reversals or magnetic reversals are unknown . The only things we are beginning to do in the 21st century are computerized simulations that have not yet produced results. It is another chaotic phenomenon.
3.6. Evidence of non-gravitational forces in the Earth-Moon system . The effect is changing the obliqueness of the ecliptic ¼ of arc second per century.
3.7. Magnetic strings between the Earth and the Sun (as in Venus and Saturn) detected by THEMIS.
3.8. Cuerdas magnéticas entre la Tierra y el Sol (como en Venus y Saturno) detectadas por THEMIS.
4. Mercury:
4.1. The precession of his perihelion does not follow Newton's Law .
4.2. It is a 75% solid body and has a magnetic field of unknown origin .
4.3. Its composition contains volatiles such as Na, K and sulphides that do not match the official model .
4.4. Its magnetic field dissipates 8% every 35 years .
4.5. Holes and wells on the surface (many inside craters) .
5. Mars:
5.1. Dichotomy on the surface of Mars, whose northern hemisphere is flat and slightly elevated and magnetized, while the south is high and with many craters .
5.2. Mars has no magnetic field, and its dynamo is supposed to be extinguished in the past .
5.3. Mars suffered Displacement of the Bark (TPW), with high volcanism and geological activity of the mantle . Contrary to what was accepted on Earth, the planet suffered a Global Global Flood ’about 3 billion years ago.
5.4. The formation of structures such as Valles Marineris or Mons Olympus is unknown .
6. Venus:
6.1. Its atmospheric pressure is 92 times the Earth's and its temperature of 900º C (the highest in the solar system), without explanation .
6.2. Superfast winds would seem to indicate superfast rotation of the atmosphere, which is not observed. In fact, it is the slowest.
6.3. Its rotation is slowing surprisingly . Certain theories suggest that, at the beginning of the solar system, Venus would have a rotation period of 33 days. Older theories, bet on a synchronization of the rotations of the Earth and Venus. Finally, some try to explain this phenomenon with a loss of charged electrons that would decrease the mass of the planet, similar to the electrodeposition process used in painting . It has been recently detected that its slowdown accelerates up to 6.5 minutes in the last 16 years .
6.4. Retrograde rotation of Venus . Its rotation is not essential (primitive solar system) .
6.5. The surface of Venus is very young and there are no known processes that explain how little eroded and the few craters there are .
6.6. Venus planetary comma (magnetosphere) and the inexplicable jets detected by the Venus Express (and Mars Express) probes, with irregular disconnections of the plasmasphere and release of plasma currents .
6.7. Despite having magneto-tail, it has no magnetic field (comma is supposed to be induced) .
6.8. Magnetic strings detected on Venus (Birkeland currents). Related to solar mass ejections (CME) [Venus has no magnetic field and its ionosphere is ‘demagnetized’].
6.9. The atmospheres of Venus and Titan are very similar in their composition and in their young surfaces with different geological processes, supposedly .
7. Jupiter:
7.1. How did Jupiter acquire its heavy elements?
7.2. It could destabilize the solar system by affecting Mercury .
7.3. Do tidal forces cause the “volcanic eruptions” of Io? Its surface is young and without craters, and the supposed volcanoes emitted by the observed plumes move (change position) . Such is its geological activity that does not seem to be even a million years old. Recently, it has been said that its ‘magnetic volcanic plumes’ {double layers} are not lava , but SO2.
7.4. Does Ganymede have a fluid core or are its auroras caused by salt water under the mantle? The only evidence of its differentiated nucleus is the existence of the magnetic field (without considering the possibility of its external cause). The variability in its auroras is attributed as evidence of an alleged saline ocean in the mantle, which in turn affects the magnetic field. A nonsense.
7.5. The moon Calisto has magnetic fields induced by the plasma of the Jupiter magnetosphere (in this case they cannot be attributed to an underground ocean or a fluid nucleus by the size of the moon) .
7.6. The strange channels and cycloid patterns of Europa cracked ice ’in Europe .
7.7. The Jupiter belt visible in the thermal infrared. The differential rotation of areas of its atmosphere and the origin of its magnetic fields are not clear .
7.8. Alleged dark hydrogen between the gaseous mantle and the supposed liquid metallic core of Jupiter could explain its powerful magnetic field.
7.9. ProtoJupiter migrations defined the solar system . It is still unclear which planets displaced or expelled any far from the solar system.
8. Saturn:
8.1. Saturn's rings would have less time than dinosaurs (65 million years old) .
8.2. The magnetic field of Saturn is perfectly symmetrical with respect to its axis of rotation, which prevents it from being created by a dynamo . The amazing "magnetic strings" between Saturn and the Sun seem to point to an extra-planetary origin of the magnetic field .
8.3. Geysers of unknown origin in Enceladus .
8.4. Methane in Titan's atmosphere should decompose by sunlight .
8.5. The surface of Titan is young and the planet has great geological activity .
8.6. Jupiter or Saturn could have expelled a giant planet at the dawn of the solar system (Nibiru, Hercóbulus, Phaeton…)
8.7. The origin of Saturn’s rings (and the solar system) is produced by electro-gravitation, which causes plasma condensation, according to Hannes Alfvén's Theory .
9. Urano y Neptuno:
9.1. The axis of rotation of Uranus is inclined 98º. In addition, its magnetic field is inclined 59º with respect to this and, above, displaced from the center. What is the excuse for that field? (Some not frozen ice, in a place in the mantle whose name I can't remember…).
9.2. His moon Miranda seems destroyed and rebuilt several times . Another speculation is the outcrop of partially melted ice.
9.3. Uranus emits UV rays (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17812892 ).
9.4. The ‘Great Dark Spot’ of Neptune (not a storm) appears and disappears, changing places .
9.5. The magnetic field of Neptune is inclined 47º with respect to its axis of rotation and displaced 55% with respect to the center of the planet .
9.6. Uranus and Neptune could not be formed in such remote regions, in the time taken for the formation of the solar system . Little is known about its formative process .
10. Rest of solar system:
10.1. Noble Gases (Ar, Xe) cannot form planetesimals over long distances to form gas giants because the temperature is too high . Gas giants contain an abundance of heavier elements than He, compared to the Sun (illogical in accretion model). To explain the formation of gas giants, planetesimals supposedly formed like comets are required. These argon or neon ice planetesimals could not be formed in the distances of the giants (5-30 AU) because the temperatures are too high for them to be condensed on ice. Therefore, planetesimals must have formed at lower temperatures. How and where?
10.2. In general, gas giants emit more energy than they receive (as if they were stars) [-except Uranus-].
10.3. Dark spots on Pluto and Charon . Dendritic structures such as those on Mars and other places (such as Earth). Tolina (wide variety of organic compounds formed by the action of ultraviolet or cosmic rays on simple hydrocarbons such as CH4, CH2 or CO2) on the planet's equator.
10.4. The planetoid Eris (KBO), in the Kuiper belt, seems to have some ‘ice volcanoes’ .
10.5. Huge eccentricity of Sedna (e = 0.85) .
10.6. The formation or even existence of the Oort Cloud .
10.7. Evidence of a giant planet (2016) in the Kuiper belt , 10 times the land mass.
10.8. Forget planet IX: there is a planet the size of Mars in the Kuiper belt .
10.9. Another giant planet detected in the Kuiper belt (RR 245) .
10.10. The alteration of the hypothetical Oort cloud by the next passage of an orb is greater than expected .
10.11. The Apollo objects ’may have caused catastrophic encounters and historical discontinuities (http://www00.unibg.it/dati/persone/636/410.pdf ).
10.12. In the solar system there are 62 moons and 61 asteroids that have retrograde orbits , in addition to Uranus and Venus with retrograde rotation.
10.13. Perhaps there was a fifth planet in the asteroid belt (Phaeton) that could explain the ‘stability’ of the four current ones .
10.14. The Tit Titus-Bode Law ’cannot be explained from a Newtonian point of view .
11. EXOPLANETS:
11.1. The formation of hot Jupiters is unknown (recognized even by NASA) and does not fit into the current planetary models .
11.2. The atmosphere of the Hot-Jupiter is inflated; the light of its star does not penetrate . Others, on the other hand, absorb all the light they receive, hardly emitting .
11.3. Examining the database of exoplanets found to date (3801), the vast majority of hot Jupiters are in orbits closer to their star than Earth to the Sun (67.9%). Most are in orbits that would be interior to Mercury. 15.4% would be at the distance of Jupiter (5 AU) or less, and another 16.8% further. In addition, many of them are hundreds of times more massive than Jupiter (brown dwarfs with all of the law). Finally, the orbital inclinations of some are very pronounced . All this does not match the official models based on our own solar system.
11.4. Possible influence of a planet on the end of the Ice Age (Pleistocene-Holocene transition). According to Woelfli and Baltensperger, it was a massive body with an extreme eccentricity that caused a pole shift .
11.5. Solar systems are more chaotic than ordered. The lack of Hot-Jupiters puts a limit to the Kozai mechanism , which allows the formation of planets by the interaction between several satellites or bodies.
11.6. The stacking of Hot-Jupiters at 0.05 AU (750,000 km) can be explained by tidal interactions .
11.7. The planet J1407 has rings larger than Saturn’s, which orbit retrograde to the planet's orbit .
11.8. "The discovery of exoplanets and solar systems very different from ours throws down theories of formation."
11.9. Many exoplanets have retrograde orbits and orbital inclinations of more than 20º.
12. Accretion Disks:
12.1. Planetary systems formed by accretion discs are chaotic .
12.2. The n-bodies problem shows that planetary systems cannot be determined in the long term [see 80].
12.3. The planetesimal model does not match much with the Nice model if the eccentricity of Jupiter's orbit is zero (e = 0), that is, if its orbit is circular https://arxiv.org/pdf/1007.0579.pdf .
12.4. Magnetic Braking Catastrophe : the supposed gravitational collapse during the formation of the disk and the proto-star would drag the magnetic field lines towards the center, slowing the rotation.
12.5. The accretion disk model predicts few giant planets .
12.6. Orbital resonances are both a source of stability and chaos, at the same time, depending on the initial conditions. https://goo.gl/vaus59
12.7. Numerous wandering (rogue) or interstellar planets have been found, also known as ‘planemos’ . In Orion constellation there is a group of 18, who challenge all kinds of theories about their formation. These young planets, larger than Jupiter, were found by infrared spectrometry.
12.8. The aforementioned transition between pebbles and planetesimals is impossible (stages 1-2).
12.9. The flow in the plasma filaments accelerates the accretion and facilitates the formation of massive orbs . The width in those filaments is practically standard .
12.10. Beta Pictoris has a young accretion disk, with a planetary system with giant planets (9 times Jupiter), which are less than 100 million years old . How is it possible that the disc has not dissipated yet? Some scientists think that they are not accretion discs, they are discs ejected in jets instead.
12.11. UX Tauri (young star) is barely 1 million years old and there is a large gap in the inner part of the accretion disk .
12.12. The angular momentum of a protoplanetary disk is inadequate compared to stellar birth models. Models predict that the Sun (and stars in general) will spin considerably faster than they actually do . The Sun, for example, only accounts for approximately 0.3 per cent of the total angular momentum (and 99.8% of the mass) of the solar system, while approximately 60% is attributed to Jupiter. This problem has also been observed in supposed ‘protoplanetary disks’ of other systems . "The formation of planets is still an unsolved problem," they say literally.
12.13. In laboratories it has been demonstrated by simulation experiments with z-pinch , angular momentum transfer, with differential rotation flows.
12.14. The zone composition is inadequate in most cases (excessive oxidation, etc.) except in certain simulations of rocky planets near the Sun.
13. Stars and galaxies:
13.1. Stars of impossible composition like SDSS J102915, which seems to be fully composed of H and He without heavy elements contradicting conventional star formation models .
13.2. Again, young stars in young galaxies possess magnetic fields that are not explained by official models .
13.3. Rotation curve of spiral galaxies : the known problem by which dark matter was invented. It seems that equations could be found that explained said speeding by modifying gravity without specifying the inclusion of unknown dark elements.
13.4. Stellar clouds with critical mass greater than the Jeans Mass (for which they should collapse), have been observed to fragment .
13.5. Stars dying prematurely in the South Pillar Nebula (Carina) in the globular cluster M4, contradict the usual stellar model .
13.6. "The generally recognized assumption, that large galactic structures and large-scale flows are produced by the action of gravity ... is false."
13.7. The differentiation between comets, asteroids, moons, planets, dwarfs and stars is diffuse . The difference between stars and dwarfs is based on the fact that they produce light through thermonuclear reactions.
13.8. Roman and Greek historical accounts attribute to Sirius B a reddish colour, which would question the supposed stellar evolution . Additionally, while Sirius A (much larger in size) is brighter in the visible light spectrum, Sirius B is brighter than Sirius A in the X-ray spectrum .
13.9. Magnetic fields play a fundamental and crucial role in channeling matter into nebulae to give birth to stars.
The literal transcript that appears in the article of the journal Nature of July 2, 2014 is crushing:
“The discovery of thousands of star systems wildly different from our own has demolished ideas about how planets form. Astronomers are searching for a whole new theory”.
GRAVITATIONAL COLLAPSE ALTERNATIVES
Le Sage's theory (kinetic theory of gravity 1748) proposed a mechanical explanation of Newton's force by small invisible particles (‘worldly corpuscles’) that act on all objects in all directions. Two bodies protect each other (shielding) from the incident corpuscles, resulting in a net imbalance in the pressure exerted by the impact of the corpuscles, which tend to join the bodies.
Tesla's Dynamic Gravity assumes a force field that explains the movements of bodies in space (Einstein spatial curvature); the ether is a fluid that permeates everything and acts contrary to any force (gravity, inertia, impulse). When a body falls, it is not because of gravity, but because of the vertical thrust of electromagnetic radiation; the object with the highest time ratio (temporary dilation) with respect to light tends to look for the most energetic position (soil).
Another classical theory is Electromagnetic Gravity (GEM) , which proposes analogies between Relativity and the electromagnetic field equations of J. C. Maxwell. It refers to the kinetic effects of gravity, in analogy with the magnetic effects of the electric charge in motion.
The Theory of Electric Gravity, by physicist Fran de Aquino introduces the concept of ‘gravitational dipole’ and ‘negative gravitational mass’ .
E. Verlinde has recently raised the Theory of Entropic Gravity based on quantum information and String Theory.
Since the mid-twentieth century, there were theories that explained gravity as vibration, (zitterbewegung in the German original); and was defended among others by Dirac, although there are many papers on them in Google-Scholar.
H. Puthoff explains it as a fluctuation of Zero Point Energy (EPZ) .
Finally, we have a wide variety of MONDs (Modified Newtonian Dynamics) , which eliminate the need for Dark Matter to explain the rotation of spiral galaxies); and also an EMOND (Electronically Modified Newtonian Dynamics) .
The phys.org writes:
“Stars are formed within the dense regions of diffuse molecular clouds, but the physical processes that determine the locations, velocity and efficiency of star formation are poorly understood. Current ideas provide for a process of approximately two steps: first, a network of dense filaments is formed due to large-scale turbulence, and then fragmentation occurs in the nuclei as gravity begins to dominate. In dense gas, the formation of the structure is affected by movements induced mainly by three processes: supersonic turbulence, self-gravity and magnetic fields, although the role of each process is still debated” .
which can be translated as: “We do not have the foggiest idea of the location and efficiency in the formation of filaments with stars in nebulae”, and “the processes of turbulence (chaotic system), gravity and magnetism are involved but we have no idea how.”
Comments