The most tragic traversty in scientific logic that currently abounds today is the theory on how the planets formed round the sun. The theory goes like this:-
Our sun passed through a gas and particle cloud some 4 billion years ago.The sun's gravity attracted this 'stuff' which coalesced into the planets moons and asteroids. As stated in the previous Chapter it seems impossible for any materials to coalesce to by the forces of gravity when they are supposed to be hurling away from each other by the force of a cataclysmic Big-Bang explosion or a Supernova!.
The 'Asteroid Belt' is also meant to be proof of planitary formation as it represents part of the planitary forming process. It is suposed to contain materials 'that have failed to form a planet' In fact it is the very existence of the Asteroid Belt that provides proof that planetary formation does not occur in that fashion.
Television images in various documentaries contain contrived animation depicting materials coming together, striking each other, melting and then blending to form asteroids etc. Well - it is cold as Hell in outer space and any small materials coming together would simply strike then bounce away.
The NEW THEORY states that our sun was once part of a trio of stars. There may have been more but the theory states that there must have been at least three suns. It is a well known fact that most star systems that one observe this very day are at least double star systems. At some point in the past each of these systems may have had more stars in them but they have matured and blown up long ago.
Suns/stars are merely massive accumulations of hydrogen that are so massive that the gravity within has forced the atoms to ignite as an atomic furnace. In this furnace elements are being produced. Our own sun is about 1/4 way through this process. So there is about 3/4 of it yet remaining of hygrogen with 1/4 being helium.
The suns/stars were of different sizes and the largest ones quickly matured first as the gravitational forces were much stronger. This set off the atomic fusion processes more rapidly than the smaller stars. Once a certain 'critical mass' had occured whilst at a stage where an element was being created it would then explode scattering all the elements created in the star.
Our largest star next to our sun went through the element creation process until the last element of the 100 or so that was created. It then exploded. and some of the material was 'captured' by the remaining two stars.
The capture came about by the 'gravitational traps' that occur round every body in the universe. These 'traps' obey the INVERSE SQUARE LAW as described by Newton.
Newton's Law of Gravity
Each object in the universe attracts each other body.
If object A has mass Ma and object B has mass Mb,
then the force F on object A is directed toward object B
and has magnitude
F = G Ma Mb / r2
So, considering the force between an Sun and the Earth
- The force exerted on the Earth by the Sun is equal and opposite to the force exerted on the Sun by the Earth.
- If the mass of the Earth were doubled, the force on the Earth would double.
- If the mass of the Sun were doubled, the force on the Earth would double.
- If the Earth were twice as far away from the Sun, the force on the Earth would be a factor four smaller.
(Taken from http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~soper/Orbits/newtongrav.html)
We are about to have another AHH - HAA moment so please pay attention.
WHEN A STAR EXPLODES THE MATERIALS FLY OUT IN ALL DIRECTIONS AS LARGE CLUMPS, SMALLER CLUMPS AND DUST DEPENDING ON THE POWER OF THE EXPLOSION. THIS MATERIAL IS CAPTURED IN ORBIT BY ANY OBJECT (STAR) DEPENDING ON THE SPEED OF THE CLUMPS AND DISTANCE FROM THE OBJECT (STAR) WHEN THE CAPTURE TAKES PLACE.
The rest of the material flies on and into outer space. Other material that does not quite match the speeds required for a circular orbit is captured in various eliptical orbits. Most of this material would eventually bombard the materials in circular orbits.
That is how the planets round the sun came into being. They were virtually 'ready-made' and NOT a result of a total accretion process.
Take a long look at the asteroid below and you will see immediately that whilst there are craters present they could not have been formed by an accretion process as the asteroid was molten at only one point in its life. The heat it endured could only have come from an exploding star. It is very cold in outer space and small particals of dust simply do not coalesce and fuse together by melting. Tell me this is so if you dare! OK obviously there has been a little accretion evidenced by the new craters clearly visible but this is only superficial.
(The following photo is by courtesy of - www.uni-hohenheim.de/.../ asteroid-ida.jpeg)
Courtesy -