To reduce spam. Please replace at with @:-Mail: <tohardyatihug.co.nz>   02:01 PM ET 12/08/99

Scientists Study Uranus, Neptune

Scientists Study Uranus, Neptune
By PAMELA SAMPSON=
Associated Press Writer=
Scientists say they may have solved a far-out mystery: how
Uranus and Neptune came to exist at the very edges of the solar
system.
A new study says the two icy planets may have been born much
closer to the sun than previously thought, and ended up in their
current orbits after gravitational forces from Jupiter violently
hurled them away.
My notes hereunder, in red.................D.C Hardy

In a way I am delighted with this announcement. It must be the first time Academia has suggested that orbits may have changed. It seems that the fixed orbits syndrome has ruled astrophysical research like a rod of iron. Question; who was it who claimed that the planets have been in fixed orbits since their birth, and how was it proven?

The whole scenario of planet formation, in the scientific world to the present day, has had to be worked into this foundational supposition. Having to explain gases, rocks and solids, all fusing together in the cold remoteness of space proposes an atomic alchemy that could not exist. Suggesting that a planetisimal orbits around within a ring of these particles, sweeping them up as it goes, is contrary to Kepler's Laws of planetary motion. Then converting them into all the elements we know of, is asking us to believe that every planet and their moons has been a magical alchemic laboratory that could only have worked if it had had enormous heat and pressure to make it work. Also expecting the outer planets to accomplish the sweep-up of their gases and solids in about the same time-scale as the inner ones, is physically warped, because the inner ones belt around their tiny orbital terrain in a fraction of the time compared with their distant sisters. It all seems contrived to make it fit. DCH

(continue)
That would explain how the two planetary giants _ each more than
10 times the mass of the Earth _ could exist at the far edge of the
solar system, where there was not enough gas and dust to make a
planet eons ago.

The study is based on computer simulations conducted by Martin
Duncan of Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario, and colleagues.
It was published in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature.
All of the planets in the solar system are believed to have
evolved through the accumulation of a large number of small bodies
that circulated in a huge disk around the sun. (Many scientists believe that 99% or so of the ring mass was gas).
The researchers theorize that Uranus and Neptune formed their
cores near the orbits of Jupiter and Saturn, within a ring of about
five to 10 astronomical units from the sun. One astronomical unit
equals the distance from the sun to the Earth. (Earth, however, is
thought to have formed much later than the big planets.)
Previous estimates of 10 to 20 AU have been given for the
birthplaces of Uranus and Neptune, which now orbit at 19 and 30
AUs, respectively.
Duncan said Jupiter grew fastest because it was closest to the
sun, where the planet-forming disk was the most dense, and then
exerted gravitational forces on its smaller planetary siblings.
Saturn may have helped eject Uranus and Neptune. (Question:- Why was Saturn not moved)?

There are one or two problems with this idea. Firstly, the one some may laugh at, but which I think cannot be ignored. Bode's Law. But for Neptune, (forget Pluto which was probably a moon of Neptune's) all the planets, Mercury to Uranus, fit the progressive pattern so closely as to not be a phenomenon that can be ignored. And Jupiter, the bad guy in Duncan's theory, fits Bode's Law perfectly. It is right where it should be. Surely, in its 'slinging', wouldn't it have been slung itself a bit out of its 'perfect' orbital position?

Science suggests that both Neptune and Uranus were slung out by Jupiter in a 'sling-shot' event, (or separate events) in the same way as space vehicles are helped on their way to outer regions. The unformed rings that were to become the asteroid belt, Mars, Earth, Venus and Mercury, because of their closeness to Jupiter, would surely have been violently scattered by such an event. But, no, this did not occur.

(continue)

Renu Malhotra, a scientist at the Lunar and Planetary Institute
in Houston, said the study does not explain why Uranus and Neptune
did not accumulate gas like Jupiter and Saturn, since the four
planets formed at roughly the same time and in roughly the same
place. (This is suggesting that planets do not evolve. Who said that Uranus and Neptune did not have an atmosphere eons ago? However, this claim is contradicted in the last sentence of this paragraph, which just goes to prove how the flaws in the existing theory of the origin of the solar system create nothing but confusion, even among scientists, or should I say, especially among scientists).
Malhotra said the evidence shows that Uranus and Neptune were
formed perhaps 30 percent closer to the sun than their present
locations _ but not as close as Duncan proposes. (What evidence)?.The planets then
may have gently migrated out to their current locations, she said. (Spiralling? Genesis Continuous, perhaps)?
Malhotra also said that gravity and friction from gas that
surrounded Uranus and Neptune could have prevented them from being
hurled out.

I believe planets evolve, or grow. Jupiter has become a gas giant, simply because it has reached gravitational pressures within to convert liquids and solids into gas.

It follows that all orbitting bodies are collectors of material from the space within their gravitational range, but stars are emitters of energy and, I'm saying, matter as well. Our sun probably loses more than it gains, (solar wind), thereby losing gravity and gradually releasing its hold on the orbitting bodies around it. Spiralling outward, equally, by all orbitting bodies, has to be the result. The 90 plus elements that make up these orbitting bodies, had to have been produced in the furnace of the sun, erupted into orbit around it and slowly released from it.

O.K. That is a very radical supposition. And it completely contradicts the scientifically accepted scenario of how the system of planets could have originated. Spiralling away from the sun fits Bode's Law into a normal progressive pattern of planetary birth, growth and destiny. (The Duncan theory says that the outer planets are older than the inner ones, yet the inner ones had a far smaller orbittal field to collect in, and therefore, by the present scientific rules, should be older). There can surely be no doubt that the birth collection of semi-molten solids of each planet has taken place near to the sun where the core material is fluid enough to form a planetisimal, containing all the known elements, that slowly being released, cools down and gathers its mantle material from solids in space. Mercury is a perfect example of a young planetisimal just starting to gather mantle material. It is covered with impact craters, no doubt collected from solar ejecta. DCH

Alan Boss, an astrophysicist at the Carnegie Institution in
Washington, said more research is needed on Duncan's theory.
``It's a radical idea,'' he said, ``but since we're in a
stalemate on Neptune and Uranus, maybe we need a radical idea.''

.  There is no 'stalemate', mate; - if you are prepared to thow out all the unlikely, all the impossible, all the 'sling-shot' and other contrived 'near miss' scenarios, all the conflicting foundational astrophysics and simply start from scratch... Look at the solar birth as not something unique, strewn with accidental, incidental events; but as an inevitable ongoing cycle of atomic and chemical activity, a continuous evolution of gas into solids leading to the creation of planets, moons, asteroids etc., then you will see how the sun is the mother of her family, and that every star has the same evolutionary capability. There is nowhere else that a planet's almost 100 elements could have come from. And I am saying that our sun has successfully given birth to at least eight planets, (possibly more) one after the other, at regular intervals, and they are all spiralling away as the sun's gravity diminishes. The asteroid belt was a miscarriage, but, hey, she hasn't done too badly, has she?
The analysis of the composition and structure of the asteroid, Eros, by NEAR, is going to be very ineresting.....
17th February 2001............

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Back to:-Genesis Continuous

Homepage and site index