inexplicable-solar-system

HURDLE NUMBER 59. THE INEXPLICABLE SOLAR SYSTEM HURDLE.

Astronomers have long been aware that The Solar System in its present form is inexplicable. Astronomers are unable to propose any scenario of Solar System formation that results in the present configuration of the system, but that fully adheres to the laws of physics. Every scenario so far proposed “breaks” the laws of physics in one way or another. Here are some verbatim quotes from various astronomers and scientists along these lines.

Fred Whipple (Professor of Astronomy) , in his book “Earth Moon and Planets” 1971 states as follows:- “All the hypotheses (of Solar System formation) so far presented have failed or remained unproved, when physical theory is properly applied”.

William H. Jefferys, writing in The Astronomical Journal (72: 872 – 875 Sept 1967) states as follows:- “A striking feature of such resonant configurations (in The Solar System) is the apparent necessity to invoke other than purely gravitational forces in order to explain the existence of so many of them in The Solar System.” (Note:- “resonant configurations” is astronomers jargon meaning synchronization of movements of planets and/or satellites.)

The physicist John Gribbin, in his book “Genesis, The Origins of Man and the Universe”, 1981 (page 86) writes as follows:- “In a major academic work published in 1978, 28 of the most eminent theorists of modern times spent no less than 668 pages covering the best modern thought on the problem of the origin of The Solar System, and still came out with no single answer – there is no one detailed model accepted by everybody.”

The following is a quote from the book – “Inside a Planet: The Physics of Planet and Satellite Interiors” by G.H.A. Cole, Professor of Theoretical Physics, published by Hull University Press, 1986 (page 111) “Theories of the formation of the (Solar) System address a problem that is easily stated, but has not yet been properly solved” – and on page 116 – “There is still no single theory of the origin of The Solar System that accounts satisfactorily for all the observed properties.” The same author, discussing The Nebular Hypothesis of Solar System formation (page 113) has this to say:- “These theories --------cannot explain------- why The Sun does not rotate faster than it is observed to do. They give little indication how the planets would be formed.”-----“The Nebular Hypothesis for the origin of The Solar System is very widely accepted at the present time, although its many fundamental difficulties make this acceptance rather surprising.”

Here are some quotes from “The Origin of The Earth” by W.M. Smart (Regius professor of Astronomy in The University of Glasgow) (Published by Penguin Books 1955):- (Page 197) “The chief argument against the ------ nebular theory -----is the impossibility of suggesting a reasonable process whereby the planetary matter is removed from the immediate neighborhood of The Sun to the present great distances of the planets and set in motion in nearly circular orbits.” – and (Page 212) “All the theories proposed up to date as to the mechanism by which The Solar System has come into being fail to carry conviction.”

Here is a quote from the science journal “Astronomy and Space”. Volume 2, 1973, page 154 (Article by Jon Darius – “Dustmen, Electricians, and The Solar System”.) “The prevailing mood among cosmogonists these days is a curious amalgam of frustration and optimism – frustration because no amount of juggling with initial parameters and evolutionary processes gives a completely credible recipe for the present day Solar System; and yet optimism in anticipation of the wealth of observational data being amassed by extraterrestrial probes.”

Here is a quote from Patrick Moore’s book – Can You Play Cricket on Mars? – published by The History Press 2008, pages 13 and 14. “We are confident that the Earth was built up from the material of the solar nebula- - - - - - - - - - It seems reasonable to think that the Moon condensed in the same way, at the same time, and in the same region of the nebula - - - - - - - but there are various mathematical objections - - - - - (with this scenario) it is not easy to explain the marked difference in density between the two globes. Alternatively, could the Moon have been - - - - - - - captured by the gravitational pull of the Earth? Again this sounds reasonable, but the mathematical difficulties are even greater. - - - - - - - (George) Darwin pictured a combined Earth-Moon body - - - - - initially hot and viscous. It was rotating- - - - but the spin was so rapid - - - - - (that) part of it was thrown off to build up The Moon - - - - -Darwin’s theory - - - - simply does not work. A huge portion of material could not be hurled off in this way - - - - - - - Today many astronomers favor- - - - -the giant impact theory. The original Earth-Moon body was hit by a massive impactor - - - - - -debris was thrown around - - - (that) accreted to produce the Moon - - - - - this theory - - - - - does not solve all the problems - - - - - It is worth recalling a comment made by Harold Urey, a Nobel laureate and one of the twentieth century’s leading geophysicists. According to Urey, BECAUSE ALL THE THEORIES OF THE MOON’S ORIGIN ARE SO UNCONVINCING, SCIENCE HAS PROVED THAT THE MOON DOES NOT EXIST! (My capitals and highlighting) (My comment:- This tongue in cheek comment by Urey serves to highlight the severe problems in suggesting any possible scenario of Solar System formation by “natural” means!)

Here is a quote from the book Great Ideas and Theories of Modern Cosmology, by Jagjit Singh, Pub Dover Publications 1970. Chapter 16 of this book (entitled “The Origin of The Planetary Worlds”) deals with the various proposed scenarios of Solar System formation. Each scenario is carefully examined and then the incongruities and weaknesses and contradictions of the scenario are detailed. Every scenario so far proposed is found to be flawed (ie:- to not be in accordance with the laws of physics). On page 357, the author states:- “From the foregoing review of the latest theories (ie:- of Solar System formation), it would seem that none of them provides a satisfactory and conclusive answer - - - -”

Here is a quote from the book The Universe in 100 Key Discoveries, by Giles Sparrow, published by Quercus. (Giles Sparrow studied astronomy at University College, London. He is the author of many books on astronomy.) (Page 99). (Discussing accepted theories of Solar System formation) “Of course, this model - - - - - does not explain the remarkable fact that the inner terrestrial planets settled into such near (to The Sun), near-circular (low eccentricity) orbits.” (Page 289 to 291). Sparrow explains that most EXTRA-SOLAR planets move on distinctly elliptical paths. (Page 99). The (currently accepted) accretion model (of Solar System formation) should produce very uniform features - - - - The planets should orbit precisely in the plane extending out from the Sun’s equator (My comment:- In fact, there is a massive and inexplicable 7.15 degrees difference here!), and their axes of rotation should be straight up rather than tilted. Instead, almost every planet’s - - - axis is tilted, sometimes radically from the ideal”. (Page 101). “The widely accepted model (of Solar System formation) (is) known as Collisional Accretion. The planets formed from a proto-planetary nebula left in orbit after The Sun ignited - - - - (This model) - - - produces some intriguing mismatches with the Solar System as we see it today - - - -None of The Giant Planets has an orbit that quite fits the model - - -(especially) Uranus and Neptune, which - - - orbit in regions of The Solar System where the proto-planetary nebula should have been relatively sparse” Sparrow then states that “The Oort Cloud (of comets) could not have originated at the distances from The Sun where they currently orbit”

Here is a quote from an article in (The Journal) Science:- “Lunar Research: No Agreement on Evolutionary Models”, Hammond, Allen L,; 175:868-870, 1972. The article states that The Moon once has a magnetic field, and hence presumably a molten core. The article goes on to state:-“The magnetic evidence therefore leads to a picture of The Moon’s evolution that conflicts with models based on geochemical considerations.”

Here is a quote from The 1979 Yearbook of Astronomy, edited by Patrick Moore, published by Sidgwick and Jackson, London – Essay:- The Atmospheres of Uranus and Neptune, by Garry E. Hunt (page 175). “We have seen that the giant major planets which reside beyond the asteroid belt form two distinct groups. Jupiter and Saturn have atmospheres whose composition closely resembles (that of) The Sun. Uranus and Neptune are a separate family, with less of the solar proportions of the light, abundant elements, hydrogen, helium, and greater proportions of heavier elements. This division amongst the giant planets is, in itself, a major constraint upon theories to explain the origin of The Solar System.”

Here is a quote from Science Frontiers Newsletter (ISSN 1094 – 8325), published by The Sourcebook Project, Glen Arm, MD. USA. “All of these - - - (planets) - - - circle the Sun in almost exactly the same plane, but this plane is inclined 7.25 degrees to that of the Sun’s plane of rotation. That’s just too much for some astronomers. How could these - - planets have cohered from the same disc of matter as the Sun? Besides, the outer planets - - - the giant ones are too far from the Sun for the nebular hypothesis to have seeded them.”

And now for a quote from the foremost authority of all – Isaac Newton himself – Discussing the planets in the General Scholium to his Principia, he states – “Though these bodies may, indeed, persevere in their orbits by the mere laws of gravity, yet they could by no means have, at the first, derived the regular position of the orbits themselves from these laws.”

(Note:- I could fill a small book with similar quotes. The fact is that – astronomers do not know how The Solar System was formed; but more importantly, they are unable to envisage any way it COULD have formed naturally.)