Planet formation model. A continuation of the Successful Space Species Series.
MW Rhodes © 20221016
Hi I’m Murry. I hope you have some fun with this. It seems there are a few space theories that are still up for discussion and resolution with 80-90% dark matter and energy throwing a sizable spanner in the works.
If we are to be a successful space species then we’ll need some successful space stuff. One of the tools of success will be to be able to predict what mineral assets will form in the future to give us time to get there and exploit it. Assets for supplies or even a new home planet. Assets that we discover now may take too long for us to get there before they have decayed or been absorbed back into their own system. At present our most widely accepted theory of how galaxies, stars and planets form and evolve is not adequate for the task.
If we don’t advance from that theory’s application then the time our engineers get a vessel into deep space and the energy we waste travelling to targets ( targets that may not be assets by the time we arrive) then as a space species we won’t be very successful, indeed we may become extinct. If Earth’s biome is to perpetuate beyond this planet then we’ll need several key tools and knowing how to predict where and when assets will come into existence is one of those tools.
I hope what I write in these blogs helps us gain that tool.
Do you know the nebula hypothesis? It’s today’s most widely accepted theory on how galaxies, stars and planets form. I hate to say it but in its current application, it’s more wrong than right. It has its place as one of the main physical processes in space but when applied in the way that it is, it is mostly wrong and requires perhaps too many low-probability events to occur plus the addition of 80-90% dark matter for it to satisfy observations of this system.
Here’s a link for a little extra revision of what that theory is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebular_hypothesis
Let me now show you an alternative that may take some of the guesswork out of it.
A process I like to call the “Spinning Wet Tennis Ball” or SWBT plays an important role in the events leading up to the formation of smaller bodies ejecting from larger bodies. Perhaps the title alone is enough for your mind’s eye to see what this process is about. It is not nearly as simple as just a spinning wet tennis ball because the stuff that gets ejected from node is a solution of ions that is native to that node at the time of ejection. The stuff is in a hot plasma state entering the colder vacuum of space so it undergoes what you might call a micro nebula formation or simply a thermal expansion and cooling process that precipitates stuff. From the hot cooling plasma, the recombination of ions and crystallisation of minerals depends on the gradients of thermal energy at any one time in that ejecta system.
With an initial composition of around 75% hydrogen, 24% Helium and 1% other heavy elements including Iron, Carbon, Oxygen, Nitrogen and more, we may look at the equations of state to determine the sequence of ion recombination as this system expands and cools. We may also consider that we have a hotter sun radiating out more light and other solar winds than we observe today and all of which contribute to this process. The lighter elements of Hydrogen and Helium that do not get absorbed into the nodes chemically continue to expand and escape the gravitation of the much denser forming mineral body. The inner planet.
This lighter elementary cloud is more susceptible to solar winds and so separates/titrates from heavier nodes and gets whisked out to a more distant destination. One of these ejection events may result in at least two nodes. One is the inner more dense node and the other is a node of the less dense much lighter materials. This means a chemical relationship exists between an inner planet and an outer gas planet. A chemical analysis, with this in mind may determine which outer planet is Earth’s debris ball. Additional nodes may form other debris like natural satellites and asteroids.
The net result of adding inner and out planet chemistry gives us the original ionic composition of the sun’s surface at the moment such a coronal mass ejection occurs. Some variables of difference for loss of energy and mass may be included. These margins are minimal in comparison to the probabilistic status of the current nebula theory on mineral distribution.
Using this wet tennis ball physics is just the first step in predicting what a star may produce and when. A similar application of this to our galaxy formation may help us identify which galaxies are ripe for producing young new stars that are most suitable for life. All hot wet stars can send off planets but not all can produce fertile life-sustainable planets and maintain them for biodiversity with their own specific composition.
Light frequencies associated to processes such as photosynthesis need to be made in the star by the star’s specific composition and state of energy. If for example a star doesn’t contain frequencies of carbon then the harmonics of carbon atoms on the planet don’t respond to complex molecules like CO2 in photosynthesis. There are variations of this process with different harmonics of light but ultimately if the star hasn’t got those ingredients or hasn’t got the energy needed to make them shine for life then life doesn’t happen. I think one of the cooler assets to try to predict in any deep space scenario is when a planet might start forming and so by the time we get to it, it’s perhaps cool and good for life. It may take a billion years just to travel to where ever a ripe sun might be about to give birth to the right kind of planet.
For now though and before we explore galaxy formation let’s just explore the smaller scale of Stars forming planets. The composition of the star makes all the difference to life and helps us identify other stuff too.
It may sound far-fetched but let’s explore it a little further anyway.
There may be an official term for that spinning wet tennis ball process but I like calling it the Spinning Wet Tennis Ball because as a child the best way to dry a wet tennis ball is to throw it into the air with as much backspin as possible and let it bounce on the ground. When it bounces and splooshes the water out, you can see the pattern that the water makes on the ground. It looks very much like the distribution pattern of our Milky Way across the night sky. It’s a pattern and observation that gave me some ideas as time went on.
Some decades on I researched our origins theories, studied some physics, astronomy, chemistry and geology and other things at university and have applied some of my own creative and critical thoughts to our understanding of the universe and how it works. Perhaps I can show you a more efficient way of understanding the formation and evolution of stuff in our galaxies, stars and planets. It would be nice to think we might succeed and perpetuate Earth’s biome beyond this planet’s expiry of her biosphere.
Where to begin?
Starting at the beginning takes us back to a primordial distribution of stuff. From my end, a Cold Big Bang with a Lithium Deuteride thermal signature sits better with me than a Hot one with a chicken or egg dilemma about the origins of thermal radiation coming before the very material particles that we know create it. After all mass is the potential energy of radiation and not the other way around and we see it all the time in natural decay because it is the path of least resistance. Making mass from thermal radiation, however, is one path we don’t see in nature as it comes with more resistance than even we can overcome in a lab or testing field.
But, regardless of the theory of the origins of such big events or big bangs of any kind, after any distribution event, we are left with clouds and clumps of stuff that have charge, gravity some active and some inert thermal energy and so they undergo physical transformations of that energy to become the physical universe we can observe today. Collapsing a nebula is certainly an important part of this but so too are the supernova events and other physical systems and distributions going on. A spinning wet tennis ball is precisely what I would call our younger hotter Sun and the mechanism that formed our planets rather than a big single collapsing nebula.
The surface activity of the sun is a function of the state of energy at any one time and its composition. Evidence shows that our sun has been much hotter in the past and is constantly losing mass and energy so in its younger days it had more mass and energy and so higher surface activity but in slightly different solar-sphere conditions than today. We might consider it being something as simple as higher energetic coronal mass ejection events with sufficient mass to form planets.
That all our planet’s orbits align near the ecliptic plane would be the expected normalised average of projectile paths from a wet spinning sun with some variation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun
The kinetic and thermal vectors in this SWTB process resolve many issues that the Nebula theory can only do by introducing seemingly intuitive but very uncertain probabilistic requirements in addition to uncertain theories in order to satisfy outcomes in the narrative of the Nebula hypothesis. It uses handwaving solutions. It’s OK, we all do it at times this the fluffing around part of theories which is fun.
Kinetics- where the ejecta process leaves a trail of outward and sideways or arc/circular motions this translates into the observations of rings or the discs being formed from the ejecta rather than a disc formed by a collapsing nebula. The spirals of galaxies may form in more ways than one. All angular momentum remains conserved and the complexity of motion, acceleration on mass and electrical field charge vectors are significantly reduced when compared to the Nebula hypothesis.
Thermal- (Nebular Hypothesis) It is widely accepted that an accumulation of heat from collisions of cold gas and dust in space is clearly not sufficient to bring bodies such as the Earth or moon to the complete molten hot magmatic state as confirmed by geology. We then introduce a theory of partial fusion via gravity pressure acting on core minerals to provide the heat required to bring these bodies to their full magmatic state. There are some incredible assumptions being made here and potential deal breakers. One might be that the mass was sufficient to commence the partial fusion process to bring these bodies to a complete magmatic state but then not enough mass to maintain the state against the rate of thermal product to the rate of black body radiation losses to space. Quite simply how did it start a process due to mass and then stop the process without losing mass? It’s rhetorical.
If the mass of the moon or even smaller bodies was sufficient to commence the process to bring its whole body into a magmatic state then we might consider that the Earth has sufficient mass even today to maintain the process of producing more heat than it loses and so would remain as a hot molten planet without a crust. So either partial fusion never took place or some uncertain change occurred to stop the process that brought the planet to a molten hot state. Many of our asteroids look to have been completely molten too and their mass is surely not sufficient to do this from either friction or partial fusion. Their origins certainly seem more like a spurt of some kind.
There are many other assumptions that could be presented for the uncertainty they contribute to the current theory but for the sake of brevity, I won’t unless requested. The SWTB provides the thermal energy directly from an already highly thermal source the Sun. It is interesting to note that the core of the Earth’s temperature scale is similar to that of the Sun’s surface temperature. Not all planets share this characteristic but then our inner planet is bigger than most, it still has some insulating atmosphere meaning the rate of cooling is reduced. It does share a similar thermal core temp with Venus which is a similar size and similar mass but slightly different conditions. SI and Fe ionic recombination occurs around 340-380 Kj/mol depending on environmental pressure. This leads us to thermal and gravitational dependencies for gradients and rates of recombination and thermal insulations of this very dynamic hot micro nebula system.
The probability of this thermal relationship being the case in a nebula hypothesis is extremely low. Thermal temperature is a mutually exclusive outcome to have the inner planet thermals coincide with the scale of the thermals at the surface of the sun based on the vectors associated with its mass and gravity through the process described in the nebula hypothesis. The partial fusion hypothesis lends some weight to this but that theory is uncertain for the mass discrepancy of other less massive bodies coming to the full molten state.
In the SWTB the young sun was hotter, the planet’s formation simply accumulated the thermal energy as the ions precipitated and gravitationally collated, accumulated the thermals and insulated the system. A system that cools and forms a crust and continues to cool without further thermal processes heating things up. Our planets are not our sun. Jupiter’s mass in this nebula hypothesis of partial fusion should be evident but its not, not even close.
Our planets or planet and moon having only one main input of thermal energy would then cool proportionally to their size and surface area with some consideration for temporary insulations provided by heavier atmospheric particles/gasses present during the initial process.
For the Earth to form with a moon and be chemically related suggests more than one node can form in such an ejecta event. The presence of elements such as Helium ice on the surface of the moon may be from trailing the Earth’s node before reaching the initial orbit cycle and with the Earth releasing Helium while the moon cooled faster than the Earth and formed a crust before the Earth cooled enough to form its own crust sealing the helium in the process.
The mineral composition of the Earth and our moon has a strong relationship due to being part of the same ejection event. The densities etc of the moon also correspond to the expected densities of a smaller node from the one plasma solution and so they share the same mineral collations but with Earth being the first and dominant node gained most of the heavier Si and Fe elements out of that solution leaving the moon with less heavy core mass, gravity and density.
In the Nebula Hypothesis, the Disc formed two nodes from two planetoids and with much uncertainty as to the origins of the formations of the planetoids. Theia is the name of the moon node before this nebula hypothesis uses a collision of the moon into the Earth while both are still molten hot bodies. Considering the plasticity, elasticity or indeed even mineral liquidity and surface tensions of liquids the probability of such a collision resulting in a moon bouncing off is very small perhaps much closer to zero than to one.
In the nebula hypothesis is describes that many cold collisions of gas and dusts happened and the friction welded the matter together. This process is said to accumulate thermal energy and kick started a partial fusion process that melts the whole body into a molten phase. Theia managed to break those laws of averages and bounce off even though the gravitational component between then is the strongest of all possible local bodies in this system. It’s fluffing around.
The SWTB theory proposes that the moon’s node formed while following the Earth’s early node out from the sun. They were formed from the Sun’s plasma ion’s and so they formed at the equation of state where elements phase shift from ion to element and then from their to minerals. For Silicon and Iron these phases are at high temperatures meaning they are hotter than molten hot but the cooling is that which brings them down to being molten hot.
They both have an almost identical initial trajectory but form in slightly different coordinate positions in the initial ejected plasma cloud and since the first node that forms (Earth) has had more time to accumulate more mass properties and by collation has the greater density of the two nodes this translates into slightly different densities as mentioned before but also motion vectors in responses to acceleration and deceleration forces internal and external of the cloud. The lower density of the moon node makes it slightly more influenced by the solar winds and radiations of the sun. meaning a higher outward force to inward via gravity of the sun. Let’s not forget that the Earth’s own gravity is also influencing and attracting this second node (moon). The dynamics are just lovely.
So the sun’s gravity is slowing their outward motion but is still providing a slight outward force with radiation and solar winds. By the time the planet and moon system reaches the point where the sideways velocity (adopted from the surface of the sun’s spin) matches and then overtakes its outward velocity then we start to see a closing curve of the system with more sideways momentum than outward velocity thus beginning to enter its initial orbital path whereby the less dense moon with a little more outward push by the solar winds will not slow down to the Sun’s gravity as fast as the denser main node ( Earth ). There are internal tidal and charge influences too but for now, let’s just work with the external influences.
This means that the moon and other dense particles/bodies in the heavy trail will try to overshoot the Earth. This motion and trail collapse does several things including providing angular moments for the Earth’s rotation. It does so in the average direction of this system’s motion which is directly related to the rotation of the initial projectile vectors of the plasma leaving the sun which with some margins of difference is why most planets that truly spin as a closed system on an axis, spin in this same direction.
The conservation of angular momentum by a falling trail is something we might consider when comparing this to the current nebula hypothesis that uses a fully formed moon to crash into and bounce off the planet the probability of the two may come down to the observation of the like of either in nature. A lava lamp might suffice for the first and a boundary splash of magma might suffice for the second.
The tidal lock of the moon and its final shape and surface mineral distribution suggests the moon had very little rotational momentum transferred into it and by the tidal force transference through its own passing of the Earth ( without any contact collision required ). It entered its orbit according to the vector resolutions of just such a system. If you watch a lava lamp long enough you may get an idea of the variations of nodes and the tail and trail fall and how they might introduce some variation on the end result of angular moments occurring in this type of system.
I don’t have access to a supercomputer for visualisation. Perhaps this drawing with a little song works. Please excuse the typos.. Press Play . :)
I hope the drawing works. If you study cosmology or know a few things you may like to test this against the gravitational collapse of a nebula. I once believed in the currently popular theory but when I tried to resolve it with vectors, I found it near impossible to account for the friction given the discrepancies between the masses of large and small bodies, the plastic and elastic collisions in space and the gravitation acceleration of each node to be able to produce such friction. I even added the 80-90% dark matter to see if it would resolve but it just doesn’t. When I added the theory of partial fusion I ran into a similar problem with the discrepancy of masses.
So even combined with the assumed possible accumulation of thermal energy it didn’t work so I started thinking about the possibility of the Spinning Wet Tenni Ball. Some of the vectors resolved immediately like the thermal ones. Then the angular momentum and many others. So
Anyway, this is just a summary of the idea. I’m sure you can imagine that when applied to existing unknowns that it raises quite a few questions. I did look at the transitional thermal gradients of expanding plasma ejecta of such planetary mass to try to figure out the entropy effects of proton charge etc Figuring that out might account for some mass losses such as asteroid debris out onto their own orbits. Perhaps some chemical analysis of the belts might help connect the inner and outer planets to single ejecta events and add to the story of formation too.
I did find an excellent recent video of a supercomputer animation of folks trying to show how the moon collided with the Earth and it is very cool and considers lots of variables in physics. Watching it I think it misses all the precipitations and chemical fluctuations and thermal regions of recombination and cooling sections to thicker liquidities, or even heavy core interactions etc so as I watch it, it seems physically incomplete but still, it’s very cool to watch and may give you some ideas on how liquid these things may be and the variables involved.
Anyway, that’s it for now. I hope it wasn’t too heady for you. Writing this stuff, does my head in. Trying to find the right words to mean the right thing is tricky given the topic of space.
The big collapsing nebula is the same sort of thing but on a bigger scale than the smaller micro-nebula described above. Yes, our Sun came from a nebula from either a supernova or other nodal distribution thing and yes some satellites or planet-type bodies will likely have formed from that process too and so the whole system of the diagram above will look much the same on all scales for moons to planets to stars and to galaxies. Which we’ll explore in Successful Space Stuff III.
The keys here as to why I think the planets came directly from the Sun’s surface is that the activity on Jupiter and the activity on Venus are fresh. The activity on Saturn and on Earth is older. The activity on Uranus and Neptune makes them look very old and well, and Mars is as intriguing as Mercury is. There are various scenarios that can bring them into this SWTB process but not without employing probability scenarios or alternate theories like the partial fusion stuff. Anyway these things should be solvable with some chemistry recombinations that lead back to a combination of the Sun’s contents. It’ll be just like a jigsaw puzzle. :)
Take care and travel well. :) You may like to catch up on my other posts about the beginning of the universe and making something materialise from the Zero degree Kelvin cold flux in the fabric of space. :) Quite a fun one that one but not nearly as important as simply getting this predictive stuff right for our future space kiddies. :)
https://www.murryrhodes.com/our-place-in-space/2022/10/7/successful-space-species-nbsp
https://www.murryrhodes.com/our-place-in-space/2022/10/12/successful-space-species-ii
https://www.murryrhodes.com/our-place-in-space/2022/10/15/successful-space-species-iii
https://www.murryrhodes.com/our-place-in-space/2022/10/16/0ypfsf00f60x8gjcvclpqaqfqhsl7d
Cheers
Muz