http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ mirrored file For complete access to all the files of this collection see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php ========================================================== Cosmology Quest <http://sites.google.com/site/cosmologyquest/> Planets Are Born http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/090127-st-planet-formation.html /Gas-rich planets such as Jupiter and Saturn grew from a disk of dust and gas which eventually crumpled like a piece of paper under its own gravitational instability -- or so one theory goes. Now a computer simulation suggests that this idea falls apart under the turbulent forces within early protoplanetary systems. The old, favored theory relies on the protoplanetary dust disk becoming denser and thinner until it reaches a tipping point, where it becomes gravitationally unstable and collapses into kilometer-sized building blocks that form the basis for gas giants. But 3D modeling has shown for the first time that turbulence prevents the dust from settling into the dense disk necessary for gravitational instability to work./ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Now this is a fantastic finding. Finally someone bothered to actually publish some common sense science. As we were all taught in high school, the standard model of planet formation relies on gravity alone. Supposedly a dusty disk that surrounded the sun coalesced into planets. However observational evidence goes against this theory tremendously, as does the physics of dust in space. Problems with the protoplanetary dust disk theory: 1. All of the planets are drastically different in composition 2. The “tilt†of the planets' poles is different between several groups of planets. If they formed from the same disk around the sun, we should expect all the polar tilts of the planets to be the same. 3. As the simulation points out in the article, which was well known but not acknowledged before, dust in space does not coalesce into solid bodies, simply looking at Saturn's rings shows us this to be true. 4. The planets' moons are all drastically different and the formation of those moons is not well explained at all by collision models. The Earth's own moon is far too large to be reasonably explained by a collision model. 5. The comet collision model of Earth getting its water well after its formed makes no sense in the dusty disk model, why should comets with water suddenly arrive later after the Earth has formed and cooled? Its also been proven <http://sites.google.com/site/cosmologyquest/the-editor-s-musings/comets> that comets are almost entirely rocky, with little to no water. Why didn't any of the other planets recieve huge amounts of water? 6. The findings of gas giant extra-solar planets in extremely close orbits around their parent stars is not explained by the model. An alternative explaination: According the EU theory, planets are electrically ejected fully formed bodies from stars. When the assumption is made that stars are powered externally by electrically charged plasma currents, a clear explaination for planet formation becomes apparent. As the sun goes about its daily processes, it is creating in its nuclear reactions all the elements that make up planets. When a star is placed under great electrical stress, it can fission itself in an attempt to increase the surface area responsible for absorbing the electrical load. So instead of one big ball of plasma you’d have two medium balls of plasma absorbing the load which is a lot more total surface area, thereby reducing the electrical load. One being the star and the other becoming a gas giant planet. Enough electrical force at separation could kick a gas giant out of the birthing star’s solar system sending it on its own long journey through the vast emptiness of space. Large stars would tend to eject gas giant planets and gas giant planets, which are themselves brown dwarf stars, would tend to eject solid body planets. Some huge problems for the protoplanetary disk theory also crop up when we look at planets outside our solar system. Of the extra-solar planets that we have found, I believe all of them have been gas giants and all of them have been extremely close to their parent stars. According to the disk theory, this should be impossible because the gravity of the star should prevent such a massive planet from forming so close to it. However such a configuration makes perfect sense from a plasma cosmology perspective. In fact one of the most common arrangements we should expect to find are stars with tightly orbiting gas giant planets. Since plasma cosmology says there is no difference between a brown dwarf star and a gas giant planet other than its location, if you were to take a gas giant like Saturn and place it outside the electrical influence of our sun, it would begin to glow and could undergo electrical fissioning in the same way a normal star would. Looking at the planets in our own solar system, it is interesting to note that the Earth, Mars, Saturn, and Neptune all have roughly the same axial tilt in relation to the Sun… Its also interesting to note that one of the best places for life to form would be inside the plasma sheath of a brown dwarf star, where water would rain down from the heavens and the diffuse red glow of the surrounding plasma would provide constant red sun light across all sides of a planet inside the plasma sheath at all times, perfect for plant growth. Like a dim fluorescent light, it would be warm and tropical across the entire planet trapped inside such a plasma sheath. Given the electrical model of ejection, moons also suddenly lend themselves to explanation by electrical/gravitational capture after being ejected by their brown dwarf parent. Its time for scientists to throw out the old failed theory of a stable and ancient solar system and accept what observational evidence and the physics of the universe is telling them. Planets are born into existence just like everything else.