Transformation and Derivative Hypotheses Part Two
Transformation and Derivative Hypotheses for Planetary Evolution, Part Two
Brief Summary of the Nebular Hypothesis or Solar Nebular Disk Model:
According to the Nebular Hypothesis, the sun and the planets of our solar system were formed from a single spinning disk shaped cloud of dust and gas (mostly hydrogen and helium), called the Solar Nebula.
In the center of the nebula our sun was formed. The nebula orbited the sun with some amount of angular momentum. Dust particles and gas molecules began to clump together due to gravitational attraction and over millions of years these clumps, called planetesimals, formed larger chunks about 1000 meters across. These continued to attract gravitationally to each other until some were about the size of our moon, and are referred to as protoplanets. The name for this process is disk accretion and is also referred to as the protoplanet hypothesis.
Our solar system’s inner planets are rocky and the outer planets are gaseous because of the temperature during their formation. Gases coalesced forming a protosun increasing the temperature of the protosun. The temperature rose to a point where matter that had a high melting point survived as rock made of iron, aluminum, calcium, silicon, and nickel while other materials vaporized.
Low gravity towards the center and greater gravity towards the periphery of the solar system is responsible for the planet size differences with smaller planets towards the center. Further out from the sun, temperatures did not vaporize elements such as water and methane so the outer planets were able to form with more of those elements. Due to their larger size, the outer planets were able to attract a lot of helium and hydrogen.
Brief Summary of Transformation Hypothesis
Anthony Abruzzo’s Transformation Hypothesis can be found at gsjournal.net.
His 7 papers give us a history of planetary evolution hypotheses and they point out the main objections to nebular, or accretion hypothesis and its variations. Abruzzo offers up an alternative to what he calls derivative hypotheses. His view is one of transformation not derivation, or in other words, one star becomes one planet, instead of stars and planets forming together as a solar system.
Transformation hypothesis sees planets as end products versus by-products of nebular hypothesis. So rather than planets forming from proto-stars, planets are a later development in the evolution of stars.
Since cosmogonists rely on Big Bang Theory’s 13.7 billion year universal time frame, we can only “predict” that our sun will become a black dwarf. There simply has not been enough time for any star to become a black dwarf. Abruzzo imagines that it is no stretch to assume the largest being the youngest and the smallest the oldest evolutionary object. Black dwarfs being the oldest.
Transformation hypothesis says that gas giants are in an earlier phase of stellar evolution, and later the gas envelopes will be shed revealing the rocky cores within.
“If these giants formed their rocky cores by accretion and gravitationally attracted elements forming gas atmospheres, what happened to the rocky planets closer to the sun? Current wisdom says the lighter elements were pushed away by the solar wind. Yet gas giants have been recently found orbiting other stars within the minimum distance requirement of nebular hypothesis.
Magnetic braking can not account for the many different orbits and rotations of planets, but this is not inconsistent with transformation hypothesis. Although a planet’s distance from the sun determines its orbital velocity, each planet was fully formed when it came to its current orbital position.
Magnetic braking can not explain the retrograde rotations of Venus and Uranus. Lots of moons, such as Triton and Phoebe, also spin in the opposite direction of their host planet. Because of this it has been proposed that some catastrophic event is responsible for these aberrations. These moons, and the Pluto-Charon system, were freed from the Kuiper Belt and later become unbound gravitationally from the planet Neptune.
Neither camp has an explanation for the mechanism. However, transformation hypothesis considers the solar system as “unstable and subject to change” so these sorts of catastrophic events are not inconsistent with it.
Brief Summary of Stellar Metamorphosis:
Wolynski calls for creation of matter, hails the Electric Universe and plasma, and makes unsupported claims like Pulsars pulse because they switch back and forth between being inductors and capacitors.
He uses lots of mainstream terminology, such as Z-pinches, electric and magnetic fields, radiation, and so on without defining these terms.
Jeffrey says things such as "Gravity is not a constant" and "electromagnetism births stars" without ever explaining either electromagnetism or gravity. Wolynski does say that electromagnetism is responsible for gravity, and as our sun cools, "other cooling stars (planets in the SS) will loose their orbits because the sun's electric and magnetic fields will continue to lose their reach." This may have something to do with angular momentum, JW suggests in the same paragraph that we read up on it.
One of his followers who has his own video about stellar metamorphosis acknowledges, "It essentially is Oparin's. It is a further development of Oparin's work with additions."
A Very Brief Summary of Alexander Oparin’s Planetary Evolution
Alexander Oparin, best known for his work entitled, “The Origin of Life,” also had ideas about how the earth formed. Naturally, as a biochemist , he noted a difference between living and nonliving objects, and, Oparin assumed the differences could be attributed to how matter was formed. One may find more about life origin by referring to the more popular Oparin-Haldane Hypothesis.
Oparin sought to explain what he assumed was a reducing atmosphere by hypothesizing a transformation type planetary evolution. Like Descartes, he envisioned a one star, one planet scenario.
All the cases above build upon assumptions that we are in no way obligated to accept. Not only are terms, such as life and universe, ill defined or not defined at all, take a look at the definitions for cosmology.
The Universe: “all existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos.”
Cosmology is the study of the “origin and evolution of the universe.”
“Cosmogony is any model concerning the coming-into-existence of the universe or sentient beings” and a primary question is, “How do planets and stars form?”
Whereas Transformation Hypothesis replaces Nebular Hypothesis’ end-product assumption with the more reasonable by-product assumption, it is a best silent on the Big Bang Theory, and calls for annihilation of matter. Stellar Metamorphosis replaces disk accretion’s gravity with electrostatics, plasma and Birkeland currents as the basic mechanisms of planetary evolution, but offers no viable theories as to the underlying mechanism for these phenomena.
I do not accept creation or destruction of matter, therefore I do not accept a beginning or an end to “The Universe.” There is no rational hypothesis or its accompanying theory for electrostatic attraction of particles in space or for space plasma.