| Home. | Universe Galaxies And Stars Archives. | 
Universe Galaxies Stars logo.
     | Universe | Big Bang | Galaxies | Stars | Solar System | Planets | Hubble Telescope | NASA | Search Engine |

A New Way of Building Solar Systems: Full Text.


Ten Years Since The Revolution at Amazon.

SAS Black Ops at Amazon.
Amazon Kindle EBook Reader: Click For More Information.

an artists view of our solar system.
The accretion theory is the current scientific model of how the Solar System was formed: Accretion happens as a cloud of gaseous material and dust contracts under the extreme forces of gravity. Spinning mass forms a disc, probably with a bulge at the centre where a warm protostar undertakes a gestation period. And then eventually the central region of this locality collapses under the hostile force of gravity, and allows the centre to continuously heat, as the ambient gases continue to gather toward its core. From then on, the protostar dispenses and radiates much of its heat and ejects matter outward from its polar regions, where the disc itself offers little restriction to this process. And during this period, a lot of the protostar`s dust and debris is removed toward the newly forming solar system`s periphery. From there, fusion commences at the star`s core, and the star begins its active nuclear life. But it should be remembered by the reader, only stars that are 6 percent or more than the mass of the Sun can attain temperature and pressure in the core which is required to initiate fusion. The disc at this stage either disappears entirely - of forms embryonic planets.


Planetoids develop: when matter swirling around an emerging star forms small pellets which collide and make larger bodies, we just called `Planetoids`. They coalesce at that point to form large Planets with tracks of mostly empty space between them. And in the inner system, light gases are blown away by the star`s radiation to leave large rocky planets, and moons behind.


No one knows: how many stars might actually have Planets orbiting them. First generation stars which form from Hydrogen and helium only, might have Planets around them, but these might only be Gas giants like Jupiter devoid of a rocky core. For Earth like Planets to build, the star must be a second or third generation with a Hydrogen and helium cloud laced atmosphere with heavier elements. And since our Sun if reasonably typical, it seems highly unlikely other stars will not have similar solar systems to our own. But even with today`s modern telescopes, we do not have enough observational power to see directly whether this is the case or not! However, our near neighbour, Barnard`s star wobbles as it moves across the sky. Calculations currently show that the wobble of Barnard`s star could be caused by the gravitational effects of.... two Jupiter sized planets.


And so it seems: a reasonable explanation, except for the fact, our own star does not produce enough gravitational influence to have created Uranus and Neptune on the peripheral wall of our own solar system. Therefore, we either need to expand the accretion theory and produce more gravitational forces, or look around for an entirely new model of how solar systems are created. I have done both. I have expanded gravitational fields at intermittent periods in the stars history, but simultaneously postulated new stella activity, to hone and adapt the evolutionary cycle of life.

It seems inconceivable to believe we are - as science stipulates - here in the solar system, on this rock called Earth, circling the Sun inside the adsteroid belt as one of four inner Planets because we find ourselves in the right place at the right time? Or to put it more simply, do you consider our entire existence here on planet Earth to be based purely of the possibility of luck? No, of course not and nor do I.

Not only is it stupid beyond the point of reason to conclude humanity is only here because we were fortunate enough to find ourselves in the right place at the right time, it's not very scientific either. What good scientist concludes life exists merely because we found ourselves in the right place at the right time.

Still, I suppose, when you have no other ideas, are to frightened to break ranks with your fellow academics just in case someone ridicules you, and are too spineless to champion any other idea, then being in the right place at the right time is as good as any other theory.

And so the scientific community around the world clings desperately to this fanciful idea simply because there hasn't been a credible alternative: just as in the past they clung to the Ptolomy's geocentric system the Earth's is at the centre of the Solar System and all other bodies orbit around it for our Solar System for so many years.

It wasn't until Copernicus postulated theory based on a heliocentric system the Sun is at the centre of our Solar System and all other bodies orbit around it that attitudes changed. Although there was plenty of conjecture and a few heretic bonfires along the way for even considering such an outrageous belief.

Even the great Galileo was forced to acquiesce Copernicus showed with one astounding piece of new theory, everything we think we knowand understand can be turned upside down. You can take thousands of years of accepted opinion and changed, quite literally the way we view everything around us. And now, for the first time in five hundred years, I believe this piece of carefully planned postulation is about to do the same with our current evaluation of Solar System activity.

I'm about to suggest a whole new way to look at the Solar System and planets. I'll show how we can produce a formula to structure evolutionary solar systems and produce life around all other planets, and every other star in the universe. I'm about to engineer a theory that makes our existence here on Earth anything other than an accident.

Ever since mankind first looked at the sky on a sunny day he has considered the Sun to be a globular burning ball of gas. A huge nuclear fission reaction of atomic particles radiating from the one atomic source. And based on that simple observation, the scientific community has built what is known as the accretion theory: an increase by natural growth; the addition of external parts; the growing together of parts or members naturally separate. This convenient theory works on the basis that our Solar System was once only gaseous material, swirling in a primordial soup, but over hundreds of millions of years this loose particle material gradually attracted each other, clumped together, drew in gases and at the centre formed a star: our sun.

This idea initially works fine, until you examine more closely the external influence of the star on the surrounding matter (Planets.) The big flaw with the accretion theory science so loves, kicks in when we forensically measure the productive field of gravity from the said star, and quickly realise, our Sun does not produce enough influential power to construct the superior Planets of our solar system, Uranus and Neptune. And really that's where existing postulation, the accretion theory, collapses. Because the star itself does not produce enough gravitational force to construct these two planets, it would be fair to say we should have no further truck with established scientific belief on this subject, unless of course we can expand the natural remit of the star's gravitational influence. However, if the star, our Sun, is as science suggests, a configurated ball of gaseous material, then there is no possibility of extra gravity being produced from it - and thus, the postulate at that time becomes redundant. Although I wasn't quite prepared to give up on it so easily.

I figured the flaw lay in our interpretation of the sun, and every other star in the heavens, just as Copernicus did with the geocentric system.

To envisage what I say next, you need to put established thought to the back of your mind. Picture an exploding star which showers a newly formed Solar System with embryonic material, just like a Volcano spitting hot molten lava. As this material is ejected in to the nether wastes of space, the star will quickly exhaust all its proto-material, and leave nothing in its wake other than a huge raging nuclear vacuum. With little, or nothing to continue this burning the star will collapse. At this point, what we end-up with is not a consolidated burning ball of gas, surrounded by regional waste material, but a violent vortex, crushing Hydrogen atoms and maintaining the fission reaction.

This process would continue over millions of years, until the Hydrogen itself starts to peter. It's then, the surrounding peripheral material will experience a cooling of the newly formed Solar System and will return towards the star.

From the above you can clearly identify two different postulates now, one from science which offers a star burning as a globular ball of gas with no opportunity to increase its potential heat application at any definitive point in its history. And two, a new theory showing our star as a vortex, a vortex with the potential to swallow back the material it first ejected.

However, we now enter a paradox, for although the Sun (star) will try to reclaim the material it spat-out, the duration for this will become somewhat protracted. Simply wishing to gather in its former material is no longer an option. As a thought experiment, you might like to analogise.

Imagine a man trying to pour petrol on a weak fire. He might approach within touching distance, but the moment the petrol meets with the flame, the fire will explode and drive him farther away, and so his chance of pouring more petrol on the fire is limited. Until the fire subsides, the man can not safely approach the fire.

The new theory here would be strikingly similar, although with a subtle difference.

When our new star collapses back as a vortex, the star will gradually cool. As the cool effect of the star reduces the gravitational influence in the solar system, all material must naturally fall to the lowest place: ie the star itself. Without a steady heat application from the newly formed star, there is no longer any productive power to keep the material in orbit. Yet once this material, dust and debris makes contact with the vortex, it must logically ignite, heat return to the star and the burning principle commence all over again. And just like the man pouring petrol of the fire, secondary material must distance itself from the heat, gravity return and the process continue.

What we have achieved is to create a living, breathing Solar System with a fiuctional field of gravity at definitive points in its history, rather than a continuous burning ball of gas.

By making solar systems vortices, rather than globular balls of gas, we create solar systems with a productive lifecycle. They heat up, cool down, heat up, cool down, heat up, cool down, heat up, cool down. But as they do, all Solar System material begins an epic journey towards the centre of the Solar System to be unified with the star.

Yet, even with such a new idea, certain questions will be raised, and so let me tryand pre-empt these and answer what I believe the individual might ask. a: If the star is a vortices rather than a consolidated ball of gas, why do we see a round ball of gas in the sky? A: Initially the question perplexed me, then, after careful consideration I noticed something strange that explained it. When we look at the Moon or a planet, what we see is a three-dimensional object in the sky as one would expect.

However, when we view the sun, what we actually see is a two dimensional object. And if we see an object in two dimensions, it normally means it's being projected. But how could this be I thought. Further investigation leads me to believe what we see in the sky as the sun, is in fact an optical illusion: the same as a mirage in the desert. As cold space pours down the sides of the vortex, it forces the hot gas to rise, thus creating an image in 2D rather than 3D.

More evidence supports this claim when we notice the temperature disparity between the sun's umbra, penumbra and corona. For if the Sun is, as science stipulates a constant burning ball of gas the temperature should remain constant at all points, and these glaring anomalies shouldn't be apparent.

The only logical explanation is to assume the star is a vortex and we are here by anything other than chance.

  Go Forward  Go Back  Scientific View of the Solar System



  Go To Print Article  



Universe - Galaxies and Stars: Links and Contacts

the web this site
 | GNU License | Contact | Copyright | WebMaster | Terms | Disclaimer | Top Of Page. |