The full report in a single page
Contents Prev Next

1. The Solar System Formation

solar system planets

The solar system consists of the so-called inner planets, which are the ones that are inside the circle of the asteroid belt; and the outer gas planets, which are behind the asteroid belt.

The apparent reason for the gas planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune and Uranus) to remain in a gas from is that they are far away from the sun.

All space organizations around the world are adopting the Solar Nebular theory as the base for star and planet formation.

The nebular hypothesis has been formulated in the 18th century, in times when people knew nothing about binary (double) star systems; thinking that all solar systems in space are like our solar system in the present time; one sun and few planets revolve around it; and assuming our solar system in the past was exactly the same as it is today.

The idea of dust and gas did not come from no where, but from the materials that make up the earth. The earth consists of dust and gas, so it is assumed to have been made from dust and gas!

Even though the Nebular theory seems to work, at the first glance, with the the rocky planets, it fails to explain the gas giants. QUOTE: "The formation of giant planets is another unsolved problem."
http://en.wikipedia.org/Nebular_hypothesis

The supposed way of planet formation in a protoplanetary disk
http://www.youtube.com/...

Space technology kept improving, and astronomers kept adjusting and improving the nebular theory accordingly. In the 1990s they found some new stars (some and not all) do have dust and gas belts around them. As a result: they associated the finding with their theory.

The one minute YouTube video clip at the right summarizes the whole idea of the protoplanetary disk and planet formation.

A written summary of the solar system formation is in the following paragraph:

QUOTE: "Almost five billion years ago, our solar system had its beginnings as a vast cloud of dust and gas. The cloud began to collapse, flattening into a giant disk that rotated faster and faster, just as an ice skater spins faster as she brings her arms in. The Sun formed at the center, and the swirling gas and dust in the rest of the spinning disk clumped together to produce the planets, moons, asteroids, and comets. The reason so many objects orbit the Sun in nearly the same plane (called the ecliptic) and in the same direction is that they all formed from this same disk."
http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/...


An artist's impression of a protoplanetary disk.
http://www.eso.org/...
The problem is that not all young stars have dust belts around them!

If you watched the video clip above, you would have seen that it is about the formation of rocky planets only; the gas planets are not mentioned at all; because the nebular theory does not have an explanation for their formation! If this theory fails to explain existing cases, it shouldn't be a surprise if it fails to predict the presence of unknown situations.

In addition, the observed disks are not made of pure dust and gas, but they also contain rocks, metals and other materials, so that they can be interpreted as debris disks, QUOTE: "the debris disks around these examples (e.g. Vega, Alphecca, Fomalhaut, etc.) are probably not truly 'protoplanetary', but represent a later stage of disk evolution where extrasolar analogs of the asteroid belt and Kuiper belt."
http://en.wikipedia.org/...

Without a companion star, the asteroid belt wouldn't have existed!

It is said that the protoplanetary disk (also called accretion disk and nebular disk) is increasing in size, whereas the debris disk is not. This point could be true because the dying star which is releasing the dust and gas is still active but hidden under the dust. The extra volume of dust and gas must come from somewhere anyway; and if it is not coming from a hidden dying star under the dust, then where is it coming from?

QUOTE: "This artist's conception shows how the accretion disk forms as material is pulled from the companion star and swirls into the black hole."
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/...
The picture to the right shows an accretion (protoplanetary) disk around a black hole.

Regardless of the function of black holes and whether the black hole is pulling the disk material from a companion star, or the companion star is just releasing the material without any pulling force, the material itself is the same as the material that makes up identical disks around other types of stars, young or aging stars.

If observations have shown that the disk material comes from a dying companion star, then the natural explanation for the asteroid belt is to say that it contains material from a dead star that once existed in the solar system.

These observations also show that the idea of accretion disks creating new planets and stars is completely wrong. It seems that a recycling process of the material in a black hole is needed before the material can be used again for making new planets and stars.

The dark energy in the outer space is pushing everything away form everything else, so how is it possible for gases or dust or whatever thing to come together to form planets and stars without an extraordinary power to overcome this mysterious energy. The only known force so far that is capable of collecting stars debris is black holes. So it looks like the giant black holes will collapse in one day, and new planets and stars, in a gas form, will be born.

Hot-Neptune
 Hot-Neptune

Hot-Neptune
Planet migration is a theory assuming some gas planets migrate from distant locations to orbit their stars very closely. The theory is based on the locations of the gas planets in the solar system assuming these gas planets have been in their current positions since the beginning of time.
https://www.nasa.gov/...

It has been observed, elsewhere in the universe, that there are some gas planets orbit their stars in very close distances. These gas planets are in the size of Jupiter and Neptune.

Theorists think that these gas planets have come from very far places to orbit their stars very closely. So they formulated a theory called planet migration. This theory is based on the locations of the gas planets in the solar system, on the assumption that the gas planets in the solar system have been in their current positions since the beginning of time, otherwise nobody has seen the so-called hot-Jupiters and hot-Neptunes migrating from outside to inside.

It seems that these hot-Neptunes and hot-Jupiters are newly born planets, in a gas form, and they are now being developed into terrestrial planets very near their stars, by the stars' energy.

Back again to the debris disk, and since there was no black hole in the solar system to suck the disk material, it is better search and see where the disk material has actually gone.

Gases from the dying second sun attracted to gas planets and increased their gas volume.

By looking at the gas planets in our solar system, we can see that the closer the gas planet to the asteroid belt, the bigger it is. The reason is that the dust and gas clouds did not perform the supposed function. Instead of making new planets, they have just gone and collected on top of (or mixed with) existing planets, Jupiter and Saturn, and increased their gas volume!

The red-brown shades on Jupiter, including the Great Red Spot, are dust and rust.

Rust is iron, a heavy metal that does not travel far away from the source. That could have been the reason for Saturn to get a little amount of it, but it got more of lighter dust particles.

The minimum distance between Saturn and the center of the asteroid belt is about one "billion" km, whereas the minimum distance from Jupiter to the center of the asteroid belt is about 260 million km only.

Uranus is very far away from the Asteroid belt, so it got very little amount of gases that altered its gas properties very slightly. Neptune is the farthest planet from the Asteroid belt, and most likely got nothing.

This leads to a conclusion that all of the gas planets were originally like Neptune, with very close size (if not the same) and exactly the same chemical composition, but the huge amounts of gases, dust and rust produced by the dying second sun changed their sizes and chemical properties.


 Rocky mountains

 Triassic sandstone mountain

The inner planets (including the earth) must have also received some of the dust and gas from the dying sun. They have been used to seal and cement mountain rocks. This point is discussed in more details in the section about mountain formation.

Higher concentration of rust on Earth is found in the so-called Triassic sandstone mountains and in the red desert sands; more on this topic is in the section about the rust on Mars.

But it seems that most of the gases were attracted to the gas planets. It could be because they are in a colder place; according to the second law of thermodynamics: heat flows spontaneously from a hot to a cold body. The second sun by the end of its life failed to convert gases to light, so the hot gases from the dying second sun have gone to the cold bodies, Jupiter and Saturn.
 

The initial orbit of the Moon and the supposed size of Mars

The Moon Mercury
Just like all of the inner planets in the solar system, the moon has highlands, lowlands, mountains, and a mantle. So why shouldn't it be a planet?

And if it were a planet, where was it initially?

The moon's surface features, atmosphere and size are very similar to that of Mercury. These signs indicate that the two objects have lived in a very similar environment. And since Mercury is near the sun until this day, the moon could have been also there for a very long period of time.

QUOTE: "Like the moon, Mercury has very little atmosphere... Mercury is the smallest planet in our solar system -- only slightly larger than the Earth's moon... Mercury has a solid, cratered surface, much like Earth's moon"
http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/...

orbit of mercury

The orbit of Mercury (see the image above) could have been caused by a missing planet between Mercury and the Sun. If we assume now that there was a planet between Mercury and the Sun, that planet, in one way or another, would have prevented Mercury from having this strange orbit.

In the 19th century, a French astronomer suggested a very small planet between Mercury and the Sun, and called his planet, Vulcan. The suggested theory states that when Vulcan passes between Mercury and the Sun, it causes Mercury to deviate from its orbit slightly. But no such planet has been discovered so far.
http://en.wikipedia.org/...

Some say the problem of Mercury's orbit is solved by Einstein's theory of general relativity. If Einstein's theory indeed solved the problem, beyond any doubt, then why the search for the supposed planet Vulcan is ongoing; QUOTE: "Searches of NASA's two [twin] STEREO spacecraft data have failed to detect any vulcanoids between Mercury and the Sun"
http://en.wikipedia.org/...

The similarity of Mercury and the moon, and the strange orbit of Mercury, indicate that the moon was initially the first planet next to the sun.

As shown in the picture above, the sizes of the inner planets seem to be related to their distance from the sun. The closer the inner planet is to the Sun, the smaller it is. Based on this reasoning, Mars is the farthest terrestrial planet from the sun; so it should be bigger than Earth!

The moon might have received a heavy impact at a very late time that pushed it out of its original orbit around the sun, and then it started to move away.

Cambrian Period
An Artwork of Life in the Cambrian Period

The shift of position of the moon is very likely has taken place in the Cambrian period, and the moon could have been the reason that triggered water to come out from the Earth's mantle to the surface of Earth, that led to the sudden appearance of life on Earth, in the so-called the Cambrian Explosion. More about this point in the section about the water on Earth.

There are theories about the origin or formation of the moon (details on the links below or a web search on the topic of the moon formation):
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/...
http://www.space.com/,..

The closest theory to what we have in this page is the Capture theory; it states that the Earth caught a passing body which has originally formed somewhere else in the solar system. The Capture theory however is not the dominant theory. In fact, according to the first link above, it has been ruled out! But we have looked at it from a different point of view; and based on this view, we found it the most suitable theory.
 

Binary Systems

Binary (double) star systems do exist in the universe, but not many of them have been found with planets. Not because they do not contain planets, but because the Nebular theory has no place for planets in binary star systems, so astronomers do not search for planets in these system.

2 stars binary system with an earth like planet
QUOTE: "At twice the mass of Earth, the planet orbits one of the stars in the binary system at almost exactly the same distance from which Earth orbits the sun... The study provides the first evidence that terrestrial planets can form in orbits similar to Earth's, even in a binary star system where the stars are not very far apart... 'This greatly expands the potential locations to discover habitable planets in the future,' said Scott Gaudi, professor of astronomy at Ohio State. 'Half the stars in the galaxy are in binary systems. We had no idea if Earth-like planets in Earth-like orbits could even form in these systems'... 'Normally, once we see that we have a binary, we stop observing. The only reason we took such intensive observations of this binary is that we already knew there was a planet,' Gould said. 'In the future we'll change our strategy"
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...

In the quote above, it seems that they are surprised to see an earth-like planet in a binary star system where the two stars are not far apart, and the planet is orbiting one star and not both. This situation is considered impossible using the currently accepted model of planet formation.

Another example of binary star systems is planet Kepler-16b.

kepler-16bQUOTE: "Kepler 16b is 200 light years from Earth. Kepler 16 is a binary star system comprising of Kepler 16A and Kepler 16B, note that Kepler 16B is the star and Kepler 16b is the planet. Kepler 16A is an orange dwarf with 69% the mass of the sun, while Kepler 16B is a red dwarf with 20% the mass of the sun. The two stars are separated by a distance of 20.5 million miles (33 million km). The combined energy produced by the two stars is much less than that produced by our own sun. Kepler 16b is a gas giant very similar in mass and radius to the planet Saturn."
http://www.solarsystemquick.com/...

Even though this system is very different from our solar system, it does show that a planet orbiting two stars, and far away from the stars' energies, remains in a gas form. But if it were orbiting "between" the two stars, and close to their various forms of energies, it is most likely to have been a rocky planet.

Both stars are dying stars, the bigger star (16A) is an orange dwarf, and the smaller star (16B) is a red dwarf. The planet itself is in the size of Saturn. It is very likely the planet initially was much smaller than its current size, but the gases released by the dying two stars, have been collected on top of, or mixed with, the planet and increased its size and mass.

There is no mention at all of any kind of belts in this binary system (Kepler AB). And it is unlikely to form at any time in the future, because not all stars are the same, and not all stars end up in explosions. But if we assume the explosion of one of the two stars, then the exploded star will form an asteroid belt around the other star, and the planet will orbit one star plus the asteroid belt, just like Saturn now.
 

Planets of the Second Sun

Moons of Jupiter
Moons of Jupiter

A rocky and rounded (spherical) space object with a mantle must have been a planet at some point in time, regardless whether it is small or big. There are space objects in the solar system that fit in this category orbit Jupiter and Saturn; they are classified as moons.

Jupiter's moon Ganymede is the largest moon in the solar system. It is bigger than the planet Mercury, but smaller than Mars. It has a diameter of 5,262 km, whereas the diameter of Mars is 6,780 km.

Io is the closest moon to the planet Jupiter; and it has over 400 "active" volcanoes!

The planet Jupiter is still in a gas form because it is far away from the sun; but why are the moons of Jupiter very much the same as inner terrestrial planets? They must have been developed somewhere else around a star.. And since there are signs pointing to a second sun in the asteroid belt, and because the moons are relatively near the asteroid belt, we have to assume that these moon were originally planets of the second sun.

planets of the second sun
Planets of the Second Sun

 

the solar system with a second sun 200 million years ago
The solar system in the very beginning. The two stars might have been orbiting each other around a common center of mass, in a similar way to other binary star systems elsewhere in the universe.

center of mass between two stars

Two stars orbit a common center of mass.
As you see in the picture above, when the second sun was fully functioning, the two stars orbit each other around an invisible center of mass, each star has its own planets; the planet that is closer to the sun, the smaller it is; Ganymede is the farthest planet from the second sun; it has a diameter of 5262 km; on the other side Mars is the farthest, it has a diameter of 6780 km.

The gas giants orbit the two stars. Jupiter and Saturn most likely were very far away from their current position, and they kept shifting inward as the second sun loses mass, and finally stopped in their current positions when the second sun completely collapsed.

The second sun was bigger than the existing sun, so it produced more heat, and that heat forced the nearby planets to shrink, to be smaller.
 

Kuiper Belt

kuiper belt
Kuiper belt is at the right of the picture

The asteroid belt isn't the only belt in the solar system, there is also another belt surrounding the entire solar system; it is called Kuiper belt. The dwarf planet Pluto is considered an object of Kuiper belt.

Not much is know about Kuiper belt, but if the objects of it are the same as the ones in the asteroid belt, then it must have been a star.

Based on observations that we have talked about earlier, which are summarized in the picture to the right, it looks like the solar system was originally a black hole, and Kuiper belt star was orbiting it. The black hole finally exploded and gave birth to the solar system planets and two suns.

The full report in a single page
Contents Prev Next