A new model for planet formation: Solar ejections
Expansion tectonics and a new model for planet-formation
The idea of continental drift gave way to two competing models, which both used the same data and differed only in one parameter, one model posited that the earth’s radius had remained fixed, and the other that the radius has been gradually expanding. In the 20th century, evidence for the second model, expansion tectonics, with the oceanic crust proven to have begun forming as late as the Triassic period roughly 300 million years ago, made it clear that the radius had been increasing.
The plasma core of planets goes through stages similar to those of stars
When the plasma core exhausts the hydrogen fuel, nuclear reactions can no longer continue and so the core begins to contract due to its own gravity. This brings additional hydrogen into a zone where the temperature and pressure are adequate to cause fusion to resume in a shell around the core. The outer layers of the core then expand greatly.
Gas giants as a result of burning up all hydrogen
Gas giants are the result of rocky planets that run out of fuel, where a non burning inner core, unsupported by fusion, begins to shrink, releasing gravitational energy, heating the overlying layers and causing them to burn more vigorously, exploding the crust.
Is the mass of Jupiter closer to that of the Earth then the estimated 300M ?
If Jupiter formed from an Earth-sized planet, then its mass would be similar to the Earths. The mass of Jupiters moon Ganymede is estimated to be 0.025 Earths, and to account for 37% of the total mass of Jupiters moons.
In a model where Jupiter as a rocky planet had the mass of the Earth, 1M, then as Jupiter want from a rocky planet to a gas giant, a bit less than 0.1 Earths, 7%, would have formed the many moons that orbit it today. The crust that formed the asteroid belt could have been less then 1% of the total mass. That would leave the gas giant Jupiter with at least 90% of its mass, 0.9M.
Jupiter as a swollen planet, similar to how red giants are swollen stars
The size of Jupiter would then not be the result of a large mass, but, similar to how a red giant is a bloated star, it would be an inflated planet, as a result of nucleosynthesis shifting from the inner core to outer layers.
The asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter as Jupiters crust
The idea that the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter were remnants of an exploded planet was rejected because of the low combined mass of the asteroid belt, only 4% of the mass of the moon.
In 1802, shortly after discovering Pallas, Olbers suggested to Herschel that Ceres and Pallas were fragments of a much larger planet that once occupied the Mars–Jupiter region, this planet having suffered an internal explosion or a cometary impact many million years before.[32] Over time, however, this hypothesis has fallen from favor. The large amount of energy required to destroy a planet, combined with the belt’s low combined mass, which is only about 4% of the mass of the Moon,[2] do not support the hypothesis.
If, however, the asteroid belt was just the remnants of the crust of a planet, then the mass fits better. Within a solar ejection model of planet formation, as the core ran out of fuel on the rocky planet that became the gas giant Jupiter, it expanded, exploding the crust, and lit up so that Jupiter today can be observed to, in contrast to the rocky planets, emit light.
The luminosity of Jupiter shows that planets have fusion cores
That planets have plasma cores is evident from that Jupiter emits light (the total light it emits is more than the amount of sunlight that reaches the planet), a result of loosing its crust which remains in the form of the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. The inner planets do not emit any of their own light, as they are covered in solid crust.
Distance between planets as a result of exponential decrease in gravitational pull from Sun
In a model where planets are formed from solar ejections, and gradually move away from the sun, then it would be expected that they would be moving away faster and faster as they got further and further from the Sun, and, there is a pattern of doublings, exponential increase in the speed at which planets move away from the sun.
A new model for planet formation: Solar ejections
The image below is a blob of plasma separated from the sun, wide enough to span 10 Earths.
So, the life-cycle of a planet could reflect the distance from the sun, with younger planets found closer to the sun, and older planets having exploding into gas giants, then freezing as those reached the depths of space, in our solar system, Sirius C, with the ice giants Uranus and Neptune.
Mercury is a baby, Jupiter and Saturn have exploded, and Uranus and Neptune are frozen.
Jupiter gave birth to the moons that orbit it
As the core runs out of fuel, and the outer layer heats up (and explodes the crust), an early-stage gas giant would throw out coronal ejections, similar to how the sun ejected blobs that grew into planets.
The “wobble” hypothesis vs. the Sun-Sirius system
Jupiter is assumed to have a large mass, and that has been embedded in the model of the solar system, so that Jupiter is assumed to “pull” on Earth, causing it to wobble. But, the precession of the Zodiac is the result of having a binary, the Sirius system (A+B), and our sun is Sirius C.
The Sirius system, Sirius A and B, is a bright object on the night sky that rises in the east and sets in the west. The orbital period of the Sun-Sirius binary system is roughly 26000 years, and our sun, Sirius C, would have been the furthest away from its companions around 2000 years ago, when the solar month of Pisces began, and would then have been a lot closer some 15000 years ago and therefore, in the night sky to anyone alive at that time, a lot bigger and brighter, which would mean that it would have had more significance to early civilization than it has today.
Logical inference, a line of reasoning about the mass of Jupiter
Hypothesis A:
Jupiter has huge mass, 300 earth masses, and therefore “pulls” on the Earth, causing it to “wobble”, resulting in precession of the Zodiac
Hypothesis B:
If the precession of the Zodiac is rather the result of the sun orbiting another star, Sirius A, then the “pull” that a 300M Jupiter would have on Earth, is not accounted for, therefore, Jupiter does not have a mass of 300 M, rather, it is a “red giant” planet, with a mass close to the Earths’ (1M), bloated up as a result of altered distribution of matter within its core.
From the “wobble theory” to a sun-Sirius system, and what Jupiters’ mass has to do with that
Since Jupiter is so large, it looks as it would be very massive, with 300x the mass of the Earth. That would then pull on the Earth, and cause it to “wobble”. The assumption that Jupiter is massive, is why the “wobble theory” has been wide spread since Newton in the 1600s, as an explanation for the precession of the Zodiac.
It is first if you think that Jupiter is not much more massive than the Earth, and that it is instead a “red giant” planet, that has bloated up to hundreds of times its former size, that you would have a solar system where the Earth would not “wobble”.
And, in that solar system, the only explanation for the precession of the Zodiac would be a sun-Sirius system.
Dr. William Brown’s sun-Sirius system hypothesis
I’ll end with the words of Dr. William Brown, from A sun-Sirius system ?
”Resonance is a criterion stipulated for any system of orbiting bodies, which is why planets and moons are often times tidally locked with their parent body, and is another reason why the hypothesis of a putative wobble is very unappealing. A wobble is indicative of dynamic instability, not harmonic resonance (think of a spinning top before it falls, it begins to wobble). “