"We had the sky up there, and we used to lay on our backs and look up at them, and discuss whether they was made or just happened."
- Mark Twain
``Do not believe in traditions or elders, habitual assumptions, texts, ancient or modern reports, spoken or written. Believe in what logically agrees with observation and analysis and benefits one and all - live up to that.''
--Gautama Siddhartha
As shown in the last chapter, biological evolution is dependent on theories of the evolution of the Earth. This is why geology has played such a role in evolution throughout its history. This theory in turn is dependent on theories about the evolution of the solar system. These theories become interwoven and become like a house of cards dependent on one another. While not directly dependent, these theories of the evolution of the solar system are philosophically dependent on those concerning the evolution of the universe itself. Like a house of cards, they can and should fall if one of these theories proves to be untrue or impossible.
I. Evolution of the Solar System
At the dawn of the Enlightenment, scholars believed in traditions handed down by the Ancient Greeks about the nature of the Universe. They accepted the idea of Aristotle that the universe consisted of crystalline spheres that revolve around the Earth. Each planet and the Sun were attached to these spheres and they moved with these spheres across the sky. The fixed lights or stars seemed changeless and were all on the last sphere beyond Saturn and beyond that was the sphere of the Prime Mover which caused the movement of the whole system. Ptolemy enhanced this view to explain the observations of the planets moving backwards in the sky before again moving forward in 150 A.D. This is called retrograde motion. He claimed the planets revolve around spheres fixed Aristotle's crystalline spheres, which accounted for the retrograde motion. These ideas explained and dominated astronomical thought for fifteen hundred years, engraining three ideas: the Earth is the center of the universe, celestial objects are perfect and unchanging, and all motion is in constant circular motion, since the sphere was thought to be the most perfect shape.
Ptolemy's Cosmology
An alternative theory was suggested by Aristarchus of Samos around 200 B.C. He suggested that the Earth revolves around the Sun and rotates around its axis. However, the Aristotelian view was preferred as the Earth obviously did not appear to move, but only the celestial objects could be experienced to be moving. A mathematical objection was also raised that the stars did not appear to move at different times as they would if the Earth was traveling around the Sun. This is known as the parallax effect and could not be observed at the time. Thus, the Ptolemaic theory fit the evidence at the time better than other models.
At the middle of the sixteenth century, Copernicus developed his heliocentric theory, which also stated that the planets revolve around the Sun although still revolving in concentric circles. Before the modern era, the cosmology of Ptolemy was adopted by the Catholic Church. They turned the Aristotelian Prime Mover into the Christian god and its sphere became Heaven. Thus to go against this view was to challenge the Catholic Church, even though the idea itself was a Greek one and not Christian at all. Copernicus did not publish his idea until he was dying, possibly to avoid conflict. Even so because of the use of circular orbits by Copernicus, Ptolemy's model was more accurate at predicting the path of the planets.
Copernican Cosmology
In the beginning of the seventeenth century, Johannes Kepler sought to prove the Copernican theory and to answer the question of why there were only 6 planets. Kepler was a typical Christian natural philosopher of the time who sought to know the mind of God by
studying and rationalizing the universe that God created. Kepler created a cosmological model to explain the number of planets and their necessity. He theorized that each planet's sphere was separated by one of the five platonic solids: pyramid, cube, octahedron, dodecahedron, and icosahedron. Thus the sphere of one planet's orbit would touch the points of the inscribed solid and the next planet's sphere would be inside it touching the planes of the solid. This idea described the orbits of the planets with only a ten percent error and Kepler sought out more accurate measurements of the planet's orbits to prove his model.
He became an assistant to Tycho Brahe who had the most accurate observations of the planets at the time. Brahe had observations accurate enough to show that comets were not gaseous phenomenon as previously thought but were more distant than the planets and that the
Platonic Solids Early Cosmology of Kepler
novae, or new stars, observed were as distant as the other stars. Kepler used these observations to overturn his original theory. He found that the planets did not orbit the Sun in circles, but in ellipses with the Sun at one focal point. He also formulated laws for the changing speeds of the planet around the Sun. He improved on the telescope and described both the Moon and the moons around Jupiter that Galileo discovered as satellites.
focal point of ellipse
2nd focal point
Next, Newton tried to answer the question as to why the planets remained in stable orbits. He developed a mathematical analysis of the solar system and developed his Gravitational law. This showed why the planets revolved around the Sun, being attracted to the gravity of the Sun's mass. It also gave more detailed paths for those orbits and would later predict extra planets by their gravitational action on known planets. It also modified Kepler's view of the Solar system and made the Sun a moving body of its own. The Sun and planets rotated around a common center of gravity, making the Sun also revolve in a very small orbit which caused it to wobble slightly. Thus the planets do not revolve around the Sun, but it and they revolve around a mutual center of gravity.
Center of gravity
Center of gravity of Sun
Two theories came out of this new scientific environment, attempting to formulate an origin of the solar system from mechanical processes. One theory involved a catastrophic event and the other involved uniform processes, much in line with the geological parallels of the time. In 1745, Georges Buffon proposed that the planets formed from material ripped from the Sun by the impact of a comet, surprisingly against his uniformarian geological theory. At the time, the material of the Sun was not thought to be gaseous, so a comet impact could explode solid material off its surface. These then settled into the rocky planets in orbit around the Sun.
In 1750, Thomas Wright expanded on Newton's mechanical solar system and theorized that the stars were other Suns and that they all formed a whole held together by gravity. He theorized that the Milky Way constituted a thin flat disk in a system, with our Solar system near the gravitational center. He also thought that there were other solar systems which he called Nebulae. Immanuel Kant expanded on Wright's theories to derive an origin of the Solar system. In 1755, he published that the planets slowly formed from a nebula of gas, such as surrounds some stars.
In 1796, Pierre Laplace, a French mathematician, expanded on Kant's hypothesis. His theory began with a contracting nebula that rotated faster as it contracted. It flattened as its rotation rate increased and formed a disk in response to the action of gravity and conservation of angular momentum. Laplace proposed that when centrifugal force exceeded angular momentum, the nebula would break up into rings, cool, and these rings condense into planets. This new theory was called the nebula theory. This theory would later suffer problems as formations farther away from the center of the solar system would also be older, since they would cool more quickly.
In 1905, Thomas Chamberlin and Forest Moulton enhanced Buffon's theory by suggesting a passing star pulled a giant eruption of material from the Sun, which later condensed into small bodies that then condensed into the planets. This was called the planetesimal theory. Harold Jeffreys and James Jeans thought that great tides formed on the Sun that erupted in the form of a cigar shaped filament. The hot gas would condense directly into the planets. This would explain why most of the matter occurs in the center of the solar system in Saturn and Jupiter. It also accounts for the direction of rotation being the same, the Sun's rotation, and the coplanar, nearly circular orbits.
Impact Planetesimal Nebular Rings of Laplace Protoplanet
Time
However, all of these theories fail because of angular momentum. The Sun possesses ninety-nine percent of the mass of the solar system and only one percent of the angular momentum. Physical law says that angular momentum should be conserved, so that angular momentum should follow the mass where it originated. If the mass ejection theory occurred, the Sun should retain its angular momentum and the planets should retain only the angular momentum proportional to their mass. Furthermore, hot gas from the Sun, consisting mainly of hydrogen, could not have condensed into the rocky planets. These theories eventually grew into disfavor.
Carl von Weizsacker and Gerard Kuiper independently expanded the nebular theory in 1945 into a new theory called the protoplanet theory. In the 1930's, dust was discovered within nebulae, so these men theorized that this dust formed the nuclei for gas particles to collect on by various adhesive forces. This dust is thought to be composed of typical Earth elements: carbon, oxygen, silicon, magnesium, and iron. They also might be composed of more volatile chemicals like ammonia, methane, or water ice. They believed these collided and formed larger and larger particles. A nebula would contract due to gravity, while heat expanded it. These competing forces would equalize forming a spherical structure. As the nebula contracted, eddies formed which helped these aggregates join together to form billions of larger and larger asteroid-like bodies called planetesimals. These collided and coalesced into moon-sized bodies, which collided to form rocky planets. The composition of the planetesimals is dependent on the distance from the center of the nebula. The inner portion of the nebula would rise to two thousand degrees so that less volatile chemicals would be contained within. Material father from the center would contain more gaseous and icy materials. Thus planets formed farther from the center would contain more water, ammonia, and methane ice.
The Sun would form first from the central bulge in the nebula. This protoSun would collapse under gravitation till internal temperatures reached tens of thousands of degrees and hydrogen began to fuse in its core. The ensuing nuclear reaction lit the Sun, causing solar wind to emanate from the Sun blowing lighter gases like hydrogen and helium away from the inner solar system. The four inner planets formed by the gradual impact of rocky planetesimals. These impacts imparted heat and kinetic energy. This heat caused the forming planet to be molten and heavier elements to sink to the center while lighter ones rise to the surface. The core of the Earth should be composed of iron and the mantle of lighter materials. The crust hardens first with atmospheres formed from gases of impact and outgassing from the mantle. The planets cooled at different rates, depending on their mass. Smaller volume planets would cool quicker and have the oldest crusts, while larger planets cooled slower. The moon would have been the first to cool and therefore should show the greatest amount of impact craters from colliding meteors and have the oldest crust. The largest solid planets might then still have molten cores which have not completely cooled.
According to the theory, the outer planets formed large solid planets also, but being much farther from the Sun; it was easier for them to capture helium and hydrogen from the nebula. As they capture more gas, their mass increases and their gravity captures more gas till they suck in all nearby gas from their orbits. The gas giants formed. Uranus and Neptune are not heavy enough to accrete hydrogen and helium, so their composition contains more carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, silicon, and iron. Comets then are the remnants of icy planetesimals. As Jupiter and Saturn contract they release heat and with their moons form miniature planetary systems. Their interior moons tend to be rockier and their exterior ones icier.
Both of these theories have many problems, and angular momentum again becomes the major problem for all theories on the origin of the solar system. Science attempts to solve this problem by additional accommodation that the Sun transferred its momentum to the ionized gas of the nebula through its magnetic field. However, this process would have begun before the protostar formed. This would have stripped the forming star of some of its mass as it transferred its momentum to the surrounding nebula. This also would have increased the velocity of these gases spinning them away from the star. When angular momentum is transferred to an exterior body it would decrease its own speed of rotation and increase the distance of the object gaining angular momentum. The same thing occurs between the Earth and the Moon. The Earth transfers angular momentum now to the moon through tidal forces, which decrease the rotation of the Earth and accelerates the moon away into higher orbits. This most certainly would have disrupted any forming solar system as the inner solar system would have the greater proportion of angular momentum and the outer planets proportionally less being outside the range of the Sun's magnetic fields. Not to mention that if the protostar retained its original proportion of angular momentum from the nebula, it would be rotating too fast to condense into a star. It would seem logical that angular momentum alone would prevent the formation of stars and solar systems from a contracting nebula. A magnetic field would also form from any rotating ionized gas that would also disrupt forming protostars and planets.
Furthermore, the explanations of the inner planets being stripped of lighter gases in the inner solar system by the Sun's heat and energy also has problems. Before the protostar formed, gravity would have attracted heavier atoms in greater numbers and the rising heat would have forced lighter atoms away from the center of the nebula. This would have also occurred in the center of the forming protostar by gravitational separation making it composed of the heaviest elements in the nebula. This would have made the temperatures necessary for the protostar's core to begin fusion much higher and perhaps impossible. The Sun should have the highest concentration of heavy elements yet, we find it unequally distributed in the regions of the inner solar system away from the Sun and in the farthest regions of the outer solar system.
These problems continue. To begin with the Sun is unexplainably rich in metals for its age and type. Even so, the Earth's atmosphere contents do not match the composition of gases in the Sun. If the Earth was formed from the same cloud as the Sun, then it should have the same ratio of heavier gases as the Sun does. The Sun contains two and a half times the nitrogen as it has neon. The atmosphere of Earth contains 43,000 times as much nitrogen as neon. Since these gases remain fairly constant in the atmosphere being relatively unreactive and too heavy to escape the atmosphere their proportions should be constant, yet they do not on massive scales. Mars has 9000 times as much nitrogen as neon, and even Venus has 500 times the nitrogen as neon. Since the nebula that these planets supposedly formed from should be relatively consistent in composition, why did the sun get a lot of neon, but not nearly as much nitrogen as the sold planets did? Why did Earth and Mars get an overwhelming excess of Nitrogen? Where did the neon in these atmospheres go?
Atomic
Weight Sun Mercury Venus Earth Mars Jupiter Saturn Uranus Neptune
Hydrogen 1 91.15% 22%
.00005%
89.8% 96.3% 82.5% 80.0%
Helium 4 8.698% 6% .0012% .0005%
10.2% 3.25% 15.2% 19.0%
Carbon 12 .043%
Methane (CH4) (16)
0% .0017% 0% .3% .35% 2.3% 1%
Nitrogen 14 .0088%
3.5% 78.084% 2.7%
Ammonia (NH3) (17)
.004%
.026% .013%
Oxygen 16 .078% 42%
20.946% .13%
Water (H2O) (18)
.002% @1% .021%
Nitrogen Oxide (30)
.001% .01%
Carbon Dioxide (44)
96.5% .035% 95.32%
Neon 20 .0035%
.007% .0018% .0003%
Sodium 23
29%
Magnesium 24 .0038%
Sulfur 32 .0015%
Sulfur Dioxide (64)
.015% .001%
Silicon 28 .0045%
Argon 40
.0007% .934% 1.6%
Iron 56 .003%
Atmospheric Composition of Solar System *
*Compounds listed by volume, pure elements listed in bold
These inconsistencies occur in all the planets of the solar system. It could be expected that there would be either consistent proportion of gases throughout the solar system or a steadily increasing or decreasing amount due to gravitational sorting. Neither of these logical assumptions hold to be true. The outer planets should be even more consistent in their composition, since the gravitational effect of the Sun would be much less powerful on individual atoms. The contents of the outer planets atmospheres should hold a relatively nine to one ratio of hydrogen to helium like the Sun and most of the universe does, yet they do not. Only Jupiter falls into this range, while Saturn has too much hydrogen and Uranus and Neptune have far too much helium. Again where did these excesses come from? Gravity of he sun and planes can not account for it. Carbon in the form of methane also seems to be in excess magnifying to over seven times the Sun's content in Jupiter and Saturn, while oxygen disappears. The contents of the Sun and therefore the nebula from which it evolved do not only appear to be uniform, but widely varying.
Sun Mercury Venus Earth Mars Jupiter Saturn Uranus Neptune
Inclination of Equator to Orbit 7.5? 0? 177.3? 23.4? 25.2? 3.1? 26.7? 97.9? 29.6?
Mercury Venus Earth Mars Jupiter Saturn Uranus Neptune
Moreover, if the planets formed from a rotating nebula, then they should all be revolving the same way around the sun and rotating in the same direction. What is found is entirely different. Uranus and Venus rotate backwards from the direction of their revolution and all the planets except Mercury have tilted axes. Therefore if they formed from rotating gas and particles, then the planes of these small colliding particles differed from the solar system as a whole. Science tries to account for the large discrepancies, particularly the two most eccentric plants, Uranus and Venus, by claiming collisions must have caused such phenomenon, even thought all of Uranus' major moons orbit it approximately at an equatorial orbit. So if Uranus was knocked on its side, it seems to have taken its moons with it, which is not explainable by the force of an impactor.
However, if the solar system did form from a rotating nebula as is necessary for the planets to be rotating and conservation of momentum, then all the matter in it would be rotating in the same direction. Due to the flattening of the nebula, the eccentricities of the orbits of all particles
would decrease the farther from the center of the gas cloud and increase the closer to its center. How then could collisions of masses moving in the same direction totally reverse the direction of rotation? While it is possible that the axes of planets could be misaligned from the plane of rotation by glancing blows by large masses that are slightly out of the plane of rotation, the Sun should share the plane of rotation definitely comprising most of the mass of the solar system, yet again this too is not true. Furthermore, if the wide differences in axes were the result of collisions that tilted the planets, then how did they stay within the same plane of rotation? Any collision of that magnitude would send the planet spinning off into space on a new elliptic around the Sun, yet they have widely tilted rotation and remain in the same plane of revolution. Again, the explanations seem contrived.
Thus, all the theories of the formation of the solar system can not account for the angular momentum being mostly resident in the planets while most mass is in the sun. The planets and even the Sun are tilted out of a single plane of orbit, but somehow remain in that plane. Collision theories do not account for how the planets sustained so many impacts, but somehow remain in stable orbits in one plane around the Sun. The same theory can not account for the wild distribution of nitrogen, oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, and helium within the planets. No even distribution is present, but each planet seems to have a relatively random distribution. Yet all this shall be ignored and it shall be accepted that the solar system evolved somehow as scientists do.
II. Evolution of the Earth-Moon System
Even so, there are also continuing problems with the theories of the Earth's formation. Most of these theories have to take into account the moon also, as it is a major influence on the Earth and forms a complete system. The reason for this is the size of the moon. It is huge for a moon in the inner solar system, comprising 71% of the width of the planet mercury and 27% the diameter of the Earth, yet it is surprisingly light. It is only 1.2% of the Earth's mass. As a comparison, the second largest moon of the inner solar system is Phobos, a satellite of Mars. Earth's moon is 156 times larger than Phobos, which is only .3% of Mars diameter and .000002% of its mass. The largest moon of the outer solar system is Titan, which is only 4.3% of Saturn's diameter and .02% of its mass. The Earth-Moon system is therefore sixty times the mass difference between Saturn-Titan system and six times the size difference. Thus it is a much bigger part of the Earth-Moon system than any other planet-moon system in our solar system. Thus any theory of the formation of the Earth must account for the formation of the Moon also within a system.
The first proposed theory of the Moon's origin was set forth in 1878 by George Darwin, the son of Charles Darwin. He proposed that the Sun's gravity deformed a rapidly spinning Earth. This caused a large bulge to form and grow until the bulge tore away from the Earth by tidal forces. This was called the fission theory, and a geologist, Osmond Fisher, later claimed that the Pacific basin was the hole that the moon separated from. This was the dominant theory through the middle of the twentieth century. The problem with this theory is that the Earth would have to be rotating so fast that the day would only be 85 minutes long for this to occur.
Fission Theory Capture Theory Accretion Theory
Time
The capture theory was proposed in 1909 by Thomas Jefferson Jackson See. This theory holds that the moon was a wandering planet that formed around the Sun. It orbited too near the Earth and was captured by the Earth's gravity and began orbiting the Earth. A third theory was the co-accretion theory, proposed by Edouard Roche. His theory proposed that the Moon and Earth formed in near orbit by accretion of matter from the nebula like the other planets.
Problems began in the 1930's, when it was discovered that the Moon was moving away from the Earth. This meant that the Earth would also be rotating faster because of angular momentum. If the Moon formed 4 billion years ago, it would have been fifteen times closer and the Earth would be rotating fast enough to have a five hour day. This is too slow to eject the Moon, but too fast to capture a planet. Likewise, co-accretion would not have imparted enough angular momentum.
The lunar missions put an end to all three of these theories by finding the final conflicting evidence. Analysis of lunar rocks showed that the ratios of oxygen isotopes matched, meaning that they originated from gas at same distance from the Sun. However, the moon is barren of volatile chemicals unlike Earth. Water molecules are entirely gone, while sodium and potassium are much lower in quantity. Further studies also show a lower density than Earth, which is partially caused by an extremely small core consisting of only 3% of its mass. Earth's core comprises 30% of its mass, and so it is thought that the Moon lacks much of the Earth's iron content. The moon also has basalt and feldspar on its surface which would imply temperatures over 1150?C which is the temperature of the hottest volcanoes on Earth.
These discoveries put an end to all three theories. The fission theory explains the small core and oxygen isotopes, but the Earth would have to be spinning four times faster than it was in the past to achieve the separation of a Moon-sized mass. Also, the Pacific Ocean basin is less than 70 million years old. The capture theory does not explain the small core or the oxygen isotopes and also fails. Passing planets are also far more likely to crash into each other or throw each other out of their orbits into deep space. For a planet to be captured, its must lose a lot of energy and decrease its speed. The co-accretion theory persisted after the lunar missions as it did not require the energy changes of the capture theory. However, it does not explain the low density of the moon or the lack of volatile chemicals. It also again does not explain the high angular momentum of the Earth-Moon system.
A new theory arose from the combined work of several people. This theory began in the 1974 from William Hartmann and Donald Davis who proposed that accreting bodies would be in similar proportions of size to the asteroid belt. There would therefore be several bodies half the size of the Earth near its orbit. They observed that if a Mars-sized planet collided with the Earth it could eject enough mass from the Earth to form the Moon. A.G.W Cameron and William Ward had been working on a similar problem and in 1976 published that if a planetoid one-third to one-half the size of the Earth collided, its angular momentum could be explained. This theory is called the Giant Impact theory and is currently in favor.
However, this model does not account for the present construction of the Earth. Any impact would have to leave the Earth's core untouched to explain the lack of iron in the Moon, yet heating the Mantle and crust would have freed the iron and heavier metals in them to sink to the core, but they are abundant. It was found that very high temperatures around 10,000?C would leave these metals in place, so a larger impact was needed. Furthermore, the problem of the impactor's iron core could not have ended up as part of the Moon. Robin Camp took her experience in working with planetary rings to the problem of the Moon. It was found that particles ejected too close to a planet would spiral inward, too far and they would speed away from the planet, but within a certain range they would remain in stable orbit. Only in a small range of impact trajectories would they clump together.
Working with computer models in 1997, Camp originally made a model that had a mass three times the size of Mars hitting the Earth after it formed to shatter it, but this forms a system with too much angular momentum. Even so, one third of the simulations ended up with a second inner moon that would collide with the Earth or the other moon within 10,000 years. Some simulations produced one moon formed at 14,000 km where it would then move to its present position of 380,000 km by tidal forces. However to adjust the angular momentum, another Mars-sized impact against the direction of rotation caused the loss of angular momentum of the Earth. This theory was revised again to allow for a body twice the size of Mars impacting an early Earth half its size at a specific angle so that some of the mass of the ejection survives to strike the Earth again to eject the matter of the Moon without increasing angular momentum too much. The Earth then accreted the rest of the impactor's mass as it fell back to Earth, while the Moon did not.
Yet besides being immensely contrived, this theory has major problems. It can not be reconciled to account for the lack of iron in the moon and the fact that there is no evidence that the Earth's mantle ever melted to the extent these models insist. The angular momentum also remains a problem. Not to mention that a body impacting the Earth would have formed in a different part of the solar system and change the oxygen ratios between Earth and Moon. It also ignores the water problem since the Earth is abundant and the Moon has none. This relegates all water accumulated on the Earth to after this impact with again, the Moon accumulating none that survived. This theory is absolutely contrived adjusting the mass of the bodies, their angle, their timing, their speeds, and even the size of the clumps of matter coming out of the collision to achieve an optimal result. Even then, the theory can not explain all the evidence, which would seem to mean it did not occur. However, the assumption, as scientists somehow conclude happened, shall again be made that this event occurred and the Earth and Moon system somehow appeared. The formation of the Earth itself shall be looked at next.
III. Evolution of the Earth
The same problem with the gaseous components of the nebula also occurs with its components that are solid at Earth temperatures. Since these chemicals should be in the same proportion as the nebula from which they formed. The following chart shows the nongaseous elements by percentage of the Sun in comparison to Mars and the Earth:
Earth Compared to Solar Composition by Percentage *
Hydrogen Helium Oxygen Carbon Iron Neon Sulfur Nitrogen Silicon Magnesium Sodium Aluminum Potassium Calcium Other
**Solar materials with hydrogen, helium, and neon removed.
**Based on 5 samples in limited area, surprisingly similar to Earth percentages
Mars and the Earth seem relatively similar in composition for the limited amount of samples made of Mars. Their comparison to the Sun however is far different. Carbon is severely lacking when it should be present in abundance, and an abundance of silicon comes out of nowhere. The carbon is clearly abundant in the atmospheres of both neighboring planets, so its lack in the Earth is unexplained. The very composition of the Earth again does not match the composition of what the nebula should be, even with the removal of the majority of hydrogen, helium, and neon. Ignoring the overall chemical composition of the Earth however, present theory has the Earth slowly cooling from the remnants of the Earth-Moon formation. The mere formation of the Earth itself is unproven and largely a matter of conjecture. There are major problems with the formation of the three sectors of the Earth that humans have contact with: the lithosphere, the hydrosphere, and the atmosphere.
The structure of the Earth itself is largely a patchwork of guesses as no physical evidence of its interior is available to humans. Mankind has so far never drilled down beneath its crust and the only evidence of its actual material comes from two sources: volcanoes and seismic waves. Volcanoes give evidence of mantle material mixed with that of the crust as its melts it way to the surface. Seismic waves can approximate the general layers within the Earth and the density of those layers.
From these, the core is thought to be composed of iron and nickel in two major layers: a liquid outer core and a solid inner core. The belief that the Earth has an iron core dates back to 1600 and William Gilbert's first scientific study of magnetism. He was the first to realize that the magnetic field of the Earth pulled compass needles, rather than the contemporary theories of the North Star or a range of magnetic mountains in the North. His explanation was that a giant lodestone existed in the center of the Earth and produced this field. This made the core of the Earth composed of iron ore and this belief has remained ever since, even though this is a relic of very early science.
The mantle above that is not the liquid that magma would imply, but a solid layer that comprises most of the volume of the Earth. Like the inner core, the high pressure keeps rock solid in this layer. It is however plastic through time, pressure, and heat and this allows material to slowly convect through its layer. The majority of it consists of silicon and magnesium compounds. As stated above, the mantle show no signs of having been melted and thereby its components are not fractioned by mass. This means that the heavier materials have not sunk into the core, leaving lighter elements on top. Rather the mantle melts only at its very top due to relief of pressure and influx of water which lowers the melting point. This is why many volcanoes occur at the boundaries of crustal plates where these conditions are optimal.
From this, the lithosphere would have had to form. It is thought that the lithosphere was partially melted due to initial heat of formation and meteor impacts. This allowed the lithosphere
Structure of the Earth
Crust
35-70 km, Rocky
Liquid Outer Core
Plastic Outer Mantle 2180 km Fe/Ni
625 km Si/Mg
Solid Inner Core
Plastic Inner Mantle 1220 km Fe/Ni
2230 km Si/Mg
to separate into two layers: the crust and the lithosphere in the uppermost mantle. This melting allowed lighter materials to rise to the surface and heavier materials to sink. This apparently turned the lithosphere more solid and rigid with a greater concentration of iron and magnesium. The crust itself formed thick, lighter layers of granite and thinner, denser layers of basalt. The basalt layers sink deeper into the lithosphere than the granite. Basalt appears in composition closer to mantle material being thought to cool quickly from mantle upwellings, while granite is thought to be more slowly cooled material.
It is here again that problems start to arise. The separate areas of basalt and granite imply that mechanisms existed to cool these vast areas differently. The simplest answer would be that oceans existed to cause the cooling of some areas quicker than others. This could not occur for two reasons, a molten mantle would not allow liquid water to form and would tend to form crust at a constant level. Gravity would pull it into the lowest energy state which would form a sphere. There would be no great differences in elevation on a molten Earth, much like erupted lava plains on the Earth and moon form relatively flat surfaces. Because of this, there are no good explanations for the formation of the crust. If it formed without water, it would have been a relatively flat surface with a uniform thickness and components. What is found is a crust of two main components which have largely different elevations and composition. However, this too shall be ignored, and it shall be assumed that the crust formed somehow in its present form.
The problem of the origin of the hydrosphere or oceans will be looked at next. There are two theories that concern this origin, both of which have the oceans slowly accumulating from different sources. One theory has the oceans forming from the accumulation of water vapor from volcanic gases. The other has water arriving from space from comets or asteroids. Both of these theories have problems. As shown in the last chapter, water is present in volcanic gases currently; however, the source of this water comes from the oceans themselves. Without liquid water already present, no water would be present to be subducted into the earth or in the water table to spew out of volcanoes. Any water molecules forming with the Earth would be trapped within the rock itself by the high pressure at depths more than five kilometers. Therefore, the oceans can not originate from volcanic gas.
The problem of water coming from comets seems more likely in that a majority of their mass seems to be water. Yet here too, there are problems. Deuterium is a naturally occurring isotope of hydrogen that consists of a proton and a neutron, while normal hydrogen only has one proton. The water in comets contains twice as much deuterium in their water molecules as water on Earth. Asteroids contain a very small fraction of water, but large amounts of asteroids could potentially be a source of water. However, again their composition presents problems. If they were the source of water, then they would also bring with them ten times the amount of xenon gas than is present in our atmosphere.
Furthermore, water is just on the verge of being heavy enough to be retained by Earth's gravity as a gas. Large explosions of continual bombardments of comets and meteors would eventually throw more water back into space than brought as the oceans formed. This is particularly true with asteroids whose impact would contribute very little water per asteroid. An impact in the forming ocean of a one kilometer asteroid would throw hundreds of cubic kilometers into the atmosphere and eject much more water into space than it received. Comets while contributing more per impact also explode with much more energy. But the formation of the oceans early in the history of the Earth shall also be assumed.
The continents had to be formed next. While the ocean basins are thought to recycle under the continents, the continents themselves appear to be ancient. Their volume has not changed appreciably during the history of the Earth. The origin of continents is a mystery like most things, but one theory in accordance with general evolutionary philosophy has the continents forming slowly by accretion of matter. A more active earth has its crust broken up in many more tectonic plates than exist today. Volcanic eruptions through the newly formed crust and oceans formed island arcs at the border of the plates and then larger masses called cratons. The cratons enlarged in size to form the earliest proto-continents. These collide with the movement of plates and formed larger continents.
These collisions of plates would form mountain ranges at the boundaries of these collisions. Many current mountain ranges are formed at the boundaries of colliding plates today. The Rocky Mountains form at boundary of the North American and Pacific Plates. The Himalayas form at the boundary of the Indian plate pushing into the Eurasian plate. These collisions are thought to push up the continent and form these mountain ranges. However, current theory would require basalt to underlie the continental granite. Very deep drilling projects have found metamorphic rock rather than basalt throwing doubt on these theories, which would imply that the continents did not form on top of a basaltic ocean floor as the theory suggests. However, this too shall be ignored for now.
The formation of the early atmosphere becomes the next major problem. It supposedly would form through the Earth coalescing from the debris of a stellar nebula or the remnants of the Earth-Moon formation. This supposedly gave the early Earth a hydrogen-helium atmosphere since these are the most abundant gases in such nebulae. However this is a flawed premise even if the nebular hypothesis is correct. Most hydrogen and helium by this theory were swept into the Sun or away to the outer planets by solar wind or initial heat of the nebula. This is supposedly why the inner planets consist of heavier rock and metallic elements, rather than being composed primarily of hydrogen. Even in the nebular hypothesis, it could easily have formed an atmosphere like our own with heavier gases like Nitrogen and Oxygen at the bottom with layers of lighter gases above such as the layers of Helium and Hydrogen that now exist around our planet in the Ionosphere. As shown above, the facts that the majority of Earth's crust is composed of oxygen and the most abundant gasses in the Sun outside of hydrogen and helium are oxygen and neon. Moreover there is a missing 6.1% of molecular oxygen that is not present within our crust. Where would this oxygen go? Only half a percent accounted for the nitrogen in our atmosphere. The remaining amount of oxygen could easily account for the oxygen within water and the atmosphere. This abundance of oxygen and the excess oxygen would be consistent with our present atmosphere.
Yet the assumption is made that the original atmosphere was a hydrogen and helium mixture. Hydrogen and helium were slowly lost to space due to their low weight, and volcanic gases originated a secondary atmosphere. It is thought to slowly accumulate in the original atmosphere displacing the hydrogen and helium lost to space. However, this was done with little evidence that this occurred. What was most important was that it would be possible to create organic (carbon-based) complex molecules from the atmospheric gases. The theory then had to exclude oxygen from the atmosphere as oxygen turns amino acids and sugars into carbon dioxide and water. It breaks down organic molecules. Thus, for organic molecules to form oxygen has to be removed from the atmosphere even while retaining an abundance of water, and so science did just that. Furthermore, it creates instead a carbon rich atmosphere. It assumes that life formed by evolution and so determined what an early atmosphere should be like to ensure organic chemicals could form. This turned out to be unlike our own for the sole purpose of formulating a mixture conducive to the creation of complex organic chemicals upon which life is based.
This continues the overwhelming trend of science to restructure the Earth based on the need of a theory. Early life could not form with an oxygen atmosphere? Science can make it so. Tropical forests found fossilized in Artic regions? Animals found existing over widely-spaced continents and across oceans? Science can rearrange the position of continents on the globe or even invent continents to connect them that later sunk into the ocean, such as Lemuria in the Indian Ocean. Science has always been willing to rewrite the history and geography of the Earth to account for biological evidence and theories with no evidence to support these views.
After deciding that the early Earth could not have free oxygen in its atmosphere, it later searched for support of this theory in early rock for a reducing or non-oxygen atmosphere. Some evidence was found in the existence of pyrite and uraninite. These chemicals are unstable in an oxygen rich atmosphere and would combine with oxygen to form other chemicals. Banded iron formations are also exhibited in later rock to show a slow accumulation of oxygen. However, both of these offer no absolute proof of a reducing atmosphere, but only offer support for it. This is because it has been demonstrated that compounds unstable in oxygen atmospheres are not oxidized if they have only limited exposure to oxygen, and there are many examples of environments that exist right now in Earth environments with no or little oxygen. There are ample environments with bacteria existing that find oxygen lethal.
Oxygen free water exists in vast areas underground in the water table. Water penetrates the ground to great depths and oxygen does not readily follow it. This is evidenced by the pyrite that is commonly found in coal beds and shales. These resulted from fossilized land plants and most certainly occurred while the Earth had an oxygen atmosphere. How did this pyrite get there? Obviously it was produced in oxygen-poor water as is present in underground water sources even today. Free iron is even a component of most tap water drawn from the ground. Underground water dissolves iron out of the ground and flushes it through the ground and into the oceans.
Furthermore, vast oxygen poor areas exist in the oceans today at levels between 200 and 1000 meters. This is because oxygen has two sources of oxygen in the ocean: diffusion from the atmosphere and photosynthetic creatures that produce oxygen. Oxygen can also readily diffuse out of the oceans and is used by animals in the surface layers. As depth increases, more oxygen is used by animals and less oxygen is produced by photosynthetic organisms as light decreases. Eventually a point is reached where the majority of oxygen is depleted by animals and light does not penetrate to be enable photosynthesis. Eight hundred meters of ocean depth is a vast area for anaerobic processes to occur in. Presumably, the elements in question could form reductive forms in such places. Banded iron formations are formed in reaction with iron and water by cyanobacteria and could occur in the upper boundary of these low oxygen zones, much as they do today in soil. Thus none of the examples of oxygen poor atmosphere offer conclusive proof, but only circumstantial evidence. Yet again, it shall be assumed that the earth, the oceans, and atmosphere occurred as believed despite the evidence.
IV. Cosmic Evolution
Given the formation of the Earth and Solar System, mankind in its arrogance decides to formulate theories on the origin of the universe. The primary problem of cosmology is one of observational limits. Contrary to the cosmological principle, science is observing the universe from one point, that of Earth and its near surroundings. The view of the universe is limited from this small perspective. Large swaths of the universe can not even be seen due to the galaxy obscuring those parts of the sky. Not to mention that the universe is unaccountably vast. It is arrogant to think that any factual theory of the universe can be attempted with such a small view of the universe. These observations are not only limited by location, but by our understanding of all the processes that undoubtedly occur of which science is unaware. Without knowledge of these forces and processes, no theory of the universe can be even remotely complete or accurate.
Examples of these unknown forces and processes are already starting to appear. It is thought that expansion of the universe is accelerating. Acceleration requires an additional force, and so one was created to fill the hole in these theories, namely dark energy. It is an unknown energy that would act in opposition to gravity and that mankind has no direct experience with. It is seems to be a force of antigravity pushing matter apart and emanating from the vacuum of space rather than matter.
However, the formation and nature of the universe as a whole was a mystery until methods of measuring distance in space were developed. Geometric means can measure stars only a small distance compared to the breadth of the known universe. Stars farther away were difficult to measure until the discovery of Cepheid variable stars in 1908. Henrietta Leavitt discovered several of these in the Magellanic Clouds and found they had a period of growing bright and dim which was related to their overall brightness. The brighter the star the longer its period will be. By measuring the period, the brightness of the star can be determined. Since apparent brightness decreases regularly with distance, then knowing the brightness and the apparent brightness from Earth, the actual distance to the star can be determined.
In 1916, Harlow Shapely studied the distribution of nebulae to form a new model of the galaxy. Previously, it was thought that the galaxy comprised a lens shaped structure with the Earth at the center. Shapely showed that the galaxy was distributed with the Earth tens of thousands of light years from the center and many of the nebulae at large distances making one large galaxy. Also in 1916, Albert Einstein and Willem de Sitter further changed the shape of the universe and produced two differing mathematical models of the universe from Einstein's field equations of gravity. Einstein produced a universe collapsing under its own gravity. To stabilize this, he added an artificial negative constant to hold the universe static, which he preferred. There was no change in space. De Sitter's model produced an expanding universe that could only be static with no matter in it and a curious side-effect: light would slow down the farther from its center producing a shift of light toward the red spectrum. He hoped that his model could be proved static if the density of matter was fairly close to zero.
These ideas were expressions of the curvature of space. A negative curvature creates an open universe that is hyperboloid in shape. It does not have enough matter to hold the universe static and would thereby be an expanding universe. Parallel lines in a negatively curved space would veer away from each other. A flat curvature creates an open universe that has just enough matter to hold the universe in stasis. It extends infinitely and does not change. Parallel lines in a flat universe would remain the same distance from each other. A positive curvature creates a closed universe that is spherical in shape. It has enough matter to collapse the universe. Parallel lines in a positively curved universe would run into each other. Assuming a static universe to begin with, negative curvature expands the universe, flat curvature keeps it the same size, and positive curvature collapses the universe. If it is not static to begin with, then this initial movement must first be overcome. Such as if it was initially expanding, a flat universe would keep it expanding. The Russian Alexander Friedman worked out the solutions to all three types of universe in 1922, but did not receive much attention. Georges Lemaitre came up with an expanding universe again in 1927, but was not generally accepted at the time.
Then, Edwin Hubble began studying the gaseous-looking formations termed nebulae in the 1921. He formulated a classification system for such nebulae in the next five years that is still used today. In 1924, he located Cepheids in a nebula, and he used these to measure its distance, proving it existed outside our own galaxy and that it was a galaxy in its own right. He published confirmations of this with the Triangulum galaxy in 1926, and the Andromeda galaxy in 1929. In 1931 with Milton Humason, Hubble observed a number of galaxies and found that their light was red-shifted. This was thought to be caused by the Doppler effect, in which energy waves moving toward something are compressed and energy waves moving away are expanded. For light, compressed waves shift toward the blue spectrum and expanded waves are shifted toward the red. Hubble and Humason found that the red shift of galaxies were linear with distance in accordance with de Sitter's expanding version of the universe.
Lemaitre again proposed his theory of an expanding universe in 1931. In addition to merely stating the present state of the universe, he theorized what it was like in the past. Going backwards in time, the universe would be collapsing till eventually all matter in the universe would be confined to a small area of space. Lemaitre envisioned all matter contained in a primordial atom, which he called the cosmic egg. This then exploded to form the expansion of the universe.
However, expansion of the universe does not necessarily imply an origin from one point or even from an explosion-type scenario. There could be several possible purely mechanical models that incorporate expansion some with and some without originating from a point-source. Here we have two models originated without the author really thinking about it too much, and these non-standard ones explain the universe better than the standard one does. Reality could be much more exotic than even these simplistic models and since there are limits to what we can observe, we are merely unaware of them.
Big Bang Rotating Bang Massive Rotator
Gravity
Well
Non-accelerating Expansion Accelerating Expansion
However, scientists began working on possible methods of creating heavier elements. In 1928, George Gamow produced a quantum mechanical formula predicting the rates at which atomic nuclei could bypass their repulsive charges and fuse together at required temperatures. In 1938, Hans Bethe discovered the proton-proton reaction chain. This would explain the formation of hydrogen protons into helium nuclei. Two hydrogen protons can fuse to form deuterium, which takes an average time of one billion years in the Sun to occur. The deuterium then quickly fuses with another proton to form a helium-3 nucleus. Helium-3 nuclei then collide in various processes to form stable helium nucleus and two hydrogen nuclei, which take an average time of one million years.
In 1949, Gamow with two students, Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman, furthered Lemaitre's theory. Instead of a cosmic egg, they proposed merely a vast explosion of energy, which expanded and cooled with time as any explosion does. As this cooled, the energy turned into a sea of protons, neutrons, and electrons. These combined into atoms to form hydrogen and then helium. However, their calculations showed that elements heavier than helium would not be stable from this process. When helium nuclei collide, they form an unstable isotope of beryllium which has a half-life of 10-17 seconds. This means in that small fraction of a second it has a fifty percent chance of breaking back apart back into the two helium nuclei. Gamow also theorized that the radiation from this explosion would continue to cool until it reached a present temperature of 50?K. In 1948, his students estimated a temperature of 5?K, but a year later changed their estimate to 28?K
At the same time, Fred Hoyle discovered a nucleosynthesis pathway called the triple alpha process. In this unlikely pathway, a helium nuclei fuses with the unstable beryllium before it splits apart. This requires temperatures in excess of 100 million degrees and enough time to occur. It can only happen within hot stars and possibly supernova explosions. In this unlikely process, an unstable form of carbon is formed which will also break apart. However, if it releases a gamma ray before it breaks apart it will become stable. The stable form of carbon can then add helium to form oxygen and then neon. These can continue to fuse with helium until iron is produced at which time the reaction takes more energy to produce heavier elements than it gives out.
However, Hoyle, being an atheist, was displeased with the idea of the Big Bang theory as he did not like the idea of a beginning to the universe. He coined the term Big Bang as a slur against the theory. He also felt it violated the cosmological principle. This principle evolved from the Copernican principle that the Earth was not the center of the universe. The cosmological principle furthered this by believing that any cosmological theory should be independent of the location of the observer. Essentially and amazingly, it should not be centered on mankind. As mankind is the only one observing and from Earth this does not make much sense, however it is an aspiration of cosmologists. Hoyle, Thomas Gold, and Hermann Bondi came up with their own theory of cosmology, the steady state theory. This held that new matter was arising to fill in the spaces made by the expanding universe. This would make the cosmological principle absolute, since the universe would look the same in time as well as space. The explanation for the source of the new matter did not concern them as it needed no more explanation than where the initial energy and matter of the Big Bang came from.
This sparked bitter rivalries between groups of astrophysics, cosmologists, and astronomers. The Death Nell for the steady state theory arrived in 1963, when Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered a seemingly universal microwave radiation of around 2.7 K. This was quickly claimed to be the cosmic background radiation that Gamow had predicted and offered as proof of his theory. Since then, physicists have sought to enhance the big bang theory and push their understanding of what occurred in the early moments back as far as they can. One problem arose in the amount of matter that could be produced in the big bang. Calculations showed that the growth of the universe would be too slow to lower density enough for the universe to survive to its present believed age. The universe would have collapsed back into a ``big crunch.'' So in 1979, Alan Guth created an extension of the big bang theory called the inflationary universe theory. His way out was that in the first fraction of a second, the universe expanded more quickly than possible going many thousands of the speed of light and then went into a normal expansion. No explanation as to why this occurred or how it did expand is given other than what is necessary to explain the fact of the universe expanding. The excuse for how this occurred is the assumption that the combined forces of nature allowed faster than light travel of both space-time and energy.
First, the origin of the Big Bang itself is a mystery. The entire mass and energy of the universe appears out of nowhere from an unknown source. There is no explanation for its origin or cause. It is a rabbit out of the hat. It seems almost amusing that Hoyle justified the appearance of matter out of nowhere by the Big Bang's assumption of the same thing. There is no evidence of any substantial appearance of energy or matter appearing from nothing. All appearing matter comes from this preexisting energy. Belief in such is unscientific and unproven and thereby belief in an unnatural and massive introduction of energy without a source is also unscientific and unproven.
Many non-scientific excuses have been made to account for this massive introduction of energy, such as the small quantum fluctuations that occur in vacuums. However, before the big band there would be no space and no time. It is not just the energy that is the problem, but the entire creation of space for the energy to enter into. How is space with all its natural laws created? This is not science, but mythology.
As such, there involves many other contradictions. Another large problem with the Big Bang theory is largely ignored. Mass that is so highly concentrated will collapse on itself into a black hole. Allowing enough time for energy to convert to protons and neutrons, only one second after the big bang has occurred by current theory. This means that gravity would be in full effect before that point. The Schwarzchild radius is the radius at which matter of a certain mass (M) will collapse into a black hole. The Schwarzchild radius (RS) is defined as follows:
2GM
where c = speed of light, G = the gravitational constant, and M = the object's mass in kilograms
Since G and c are constants, this equation can be simplified as above. If the radius of the growing universe is represented by RU and assuming a maximum velocity of the expanding gas at the speed of light, then: RU = ct where t = time. Given that the minimum value of RU represented by RM must be equal or greater to RS then:
and where tM = time to reach RS and:
2GM 2GM
then: M = = = 2.01852x1038 kg
This figure of 2.01852x1038 kg is the mass that would form a black hole with expansion to one light second. However, it is only about .001 the mass of our galaxy alone. Even given three minutes, in which all matter is supposed to be created, one-fifth of our galactic mass would still instantaneously collapse back into a black hole. Even allowing an expansion of 100 times the speed of light for those three minutes which science does not presume, twenty galactic masses would instantly collapse into a black hole. Compared to the mass of the universe, these masses are trivial, yet one-thousandths of its mass would have collapsed into a black hole in a Big Bang scenario. Excuses can be made that laws of physics were not in effect for the first fractions of a second of the big bang and perhaps the energy traveled faster than the speed of light.
Other more esoteric excuses can be made that space itself was expanding and therefore is free of the consequences of gravitational collapse. This excuse would essentially compress distance, so that a set distance now would be infinitely smaller then. However, this would also compress any particles forming within such space, seemingly making them impossible to form. Even accepting such ideas, a black hole would eventually collapse spontaneously isolating a large amount of mass of the universe and pulling the rest of the universe back towards it. A seemingly ignored consequence of their excuse is that space itself would be compressed to about 4x10-16 its present size when the supposed three minutes after the Big Bang occurred and protons began to form. What effect would this extreme compression have on matter? These facts and the problem of gravity during the actual Big Bang seem to be ignored for the sole reason that it would make the expansion of the universe to its present size impossible. A similar excuse is the use of time, claiming that the singularities of black holes are only future events as they can only be experienced in one's future while the singularity of the big bang is a past event. This is fine, but the big bang collapsing into a black hole would be a future event after the past of the big bang. Thus there is no conflict. Additionally, it is believed that the ensuing explosion may have caused the formation of microscopic black holes from the pressure of the ensuing explosions. Science however deems the creation of huge black holes or a single black hole engulfing most of the universe is impossible, probably not because of physics but because of its impact on the universe, sequestering a large amount of matter.
Another problem arises with the theory in that conversion from energy to matter produces equal amounts of matter and antimatter. Antimatter is the opposite of matter. Its particles have the same mass, but opposite electric and magnetic fields. Equal particles of matter and antimatter can collide to spontaneously convert back into energy. Since they have opposite electric charges, they attract each other and this makes it very easy for them to convert back into energy.
The energy released in the big bang would convert to equal amounts of matter and antimatter. These equal amounts of particles would then immediately begin to annihilate each other reforming energy. If this theory is true, there must be some separating effect to remove antimatter from matter. What is also a problem is that there are virtually no quantities of antimatter known in the universe. Any antimatter in quantity anywhere within our range of observations would be energetically reacting with matter. This is not found, which means that antimatter must overwhelmingly be eliminated from these reactions.
Science has then struggled to formulate explanations for how the products of this explosion produce matter without antimatter. One explanation has an extremely small difference between particles and antiparticles is thought to produce an extremely slight preference for matter in such reactions. This has been thought to produce one particle of matter per billion reactions. However, actual experiments have shown that it does not even produce this amount of matter and the actual matter that would be produced is too low to produce the matter in the universe in the small amount of time required. Again, the theory fails.
Further problems are encountered with the background radiation that is held up as proof of the Big Bang. As stated, it is a continuous microwave radiation across the field of observations of about 2.76?K rather than Gamow's predicted 50?K. It is even almost half the value of the lowest estimate of 5?K. It is a bit too cool. Furthermore, it was also found that the local group of galaxies was moving approximately 600 kilometers per second toward one side of the universe and away from the other side. This has to be removed first, and then the background radiation becomes far too uniform. It should show some variation to account for the accumulation of matter into galaxies. However, it only shows variations in 1/100,000 of its uniform temperature. These variations should be merely a representation of margin of error in observation, but instead it is somehow held up as proof. These variations, however, are not high enough to account for the formation of galaxies. This too shall be ignored. Conversely, the universe itself does not seem to be uniform. Thus, a paradox is created called the horizon problem. Essentially the universe at any but its earliest fractions of a second is too large to allow the thermo-equilibrium necessary for the background radiation to be as uniform as it is. Energy could not travel fast enough to allow the entire universe to become a uniform temperature. The only way to reconcile this is again to break the speed limit of light. Even so, it would have to remain in equilibrium for billions of years of expansion while the matter does not remain uniform.
This uniformity of energy does in fact seem to show that the universe should also have a uniform spread of matter. This would also be logical as an explosion tends to spread matter uniformly around the explosion. However, 95% of galaxies form close relationships with other galaxies. These form densely packed clusters of galaxies that form even larger superclusters organized into sheets and filaments with large voids in between. The density of galactic matter can not be reconciled with the almost homogenous density of background radiation supposedly coming from the Big Bang.
Furthermore, there are disputed suggestions that red-shift does not progress in a smooth fashion as the explanation of expansion would require. It has been shown in several analysis of data that red-shift has been quantized. This means it occurs in steps rather than a smooth curve, as illustrated below. William Tifft first discovered this from analyzing 200 red shifts in 1976. It has been supported in few additional studies by other scientists, but has been largely ignored or explained away by the majority of scientists, since it would destroy their entire cosmology
Smooth Curve Quantized Curve
. Detractors claim not enough red-shifts have been analyzed or that the geometry of space is responsible. If red shift is quantized, then it has been suggested that it could mean the universe is oriented as concentric spheres radiating outward from Earth. Each shell of this sphere would have small different physical properties and the changes in red shift would be looking into these shell, rather than mass moving away from Earth. The cosmic background radiation then also becomes a quality of space.
Moreover, the entire theory rests on a premise that red-shifted light is caused by the Doppler Effect and is interpreted as meaning that the light sources are moving away from us. However, modern evidence has posed a number of problems with this assumption. One such problem is the acceleration of the expansion of the universe mentioned earlier. Science has found that far off supernovas are dimmer than their red-shift would predict. This means they are farther away than their red-shift predicts. This again is interpreted by the universe expanding, rather than decelerating as it would in a normal explosion, and the invention of new forces unknown on Earth is invented to account for this.
Lastly when all else fails, scientists used the tired excuse of our existence as proof that the Big Bang occurred rather than accept the simple idea that their theory is wrong. However, when multiple problems arise and theories need to be tweaked to make them not merely more accurate, but to make it in any way plausible, then it signs the end of the theory. Given the problems with the Big bang model of the universe, would it not be easier, more accurate, and more ethical to merely suppose that red-shift may not be related to expansion as previously thought? This would automatically invalidate the Big Bang theory. Worse, can it simply be accepted that science does not know. Is admission of ignorance such a horrible thing rather than supporting something known to be a lie?
Given that red-shift is proportional to the distance of the object, then suppose red-shifted light is at least in part an effect of empty space itself. Since unknown energy can be invented to support the current theory with all its adjustments and improbabilities, then this simple acceptance would explain the proportional nature of red-shift and the further increase in red shift for accelerating objects. Hubble himself recognized to his death the alternative theory that no expansion might exist with red shift being caused by an ``unrecognized principle of nature.'' Yet, the Big Bang theory shall also be accepted as scientists do as the true as the origin of the universe.
V. Galatic Evolution
Thus, a spherical explosion expands faster than the speed of light and problematically far enough so that it does not collapse back into a black hole. It remains heated by subatomic explosions of matter and antimatter, further expanding the universe while somehow getting rid of all the antimatter. This ends up with negligible differences in density of the expanding cloud that somehow collapsed to form galaxies in relatively dense clusters with vast voids between individual galaxies and between the clusters in contrast to the uniform spread of energy that is supposed to be evidence of this former explosion that also formed in thermal equilibrium.
These galaxies supposedly formed 300,000 years after the Big Bang when the universe cooled enough to form atoms from the ions created earlier. This is thought to cause the Dark Ages of the Universe, where light from the initial explosion were absorbed by these new atoms until the formation of the first stars inside galaxies a few billion years later. There are two theories as to how the clouds of gas that formed galaxies originated. The isothermal theory holds that the primordial gas had constant temperature, while the adiabatic theory holds that the average temperature is constant. These are frequently also called the bottom-up and top-down theory respectively. Both of these theories would have to produce the bottom limit of galaxies of 20 million solar masses.
The isothermal theory has small clouds condensing into globular clusters of about one million solar masses. These collide and combine into larger structures and then accrete into galaxies. These galaxies attract other galaxies, which form clusters and then superclusters. The adiabatic theory starts with denser areas of about ten to fourteen million solar masses being cooler, which collapse to form the superclusters. The shockwaves from these collapses further collapse it internally to form clusters and galaxies.
Spiral Galaxy like Milky Way
Stellar Halo
Bulge
Thin Disk Globular Clusters
Thick Disk
Our own galaxy is thought to have collapsed from rotating sphere of a protogalactic cloud around ten billion years ago. In the first billion years, the central area of the galaxy collapsed first to form old stars from metal poor gasses. The largest stars would have formed here being in the densest part of the galaxy. In the following two billion years, the disk part of our galaxy formed from leftover gas and collisions of other protogalaxies. Explosions from supernovae in the bulge caused gas to be ejected into the forming disk enriching it with metal. Stars then formed in the disk and condensing spirals including the Sun.
Stars more than 200 solar masses would totally collapse into black holes. Stars from 40 to 100 solar masses would also mostly collapse into black holes. Neither of these types of stars would contribute much metal to the galaxy taking most of their mass down into the black hole with them. However, stars from 100 to 200 solar masses would generate massive amounts of energy in their bulge, and they would be disrupted by production of electrons and their antiparticle, positrons. This would cause the star to explode. Stars from 10 to 40 solar masses would live a life of a few million years and then explode to form a supernova. Both of these types of stars could contribute metal to their surrounding areas.
Additionally, scientists have been found supermassive black holes within the bulges of many galaxies. These are thought to be formed from collapse of early large stars into black holes or may be the evolution of small black holes that formed from compression of matter in the Big Bang. These black holes tend to have a mass of .005 of the mass of the galaxy they are located in. Because of this relationship of mass, they may be related to the formation of the galaxy. It is thought they may have been the focus around which early protogalactic clouds formed or the byproduct of protogalaxies colliding. In the latter case, the growing black hole produces an energetic cloud of gas falling into it. This tends to expel a large amount of energy, which can push gas away from it, ending its feeding and pushing gas away from the galaxy regulating its size.
Another interesting galactic relationship was found by Vera Rubin in the 1975. She found that stars orbiting on the rim of the galaxy moved as fast as those near the center. However, they should be moving slower the farther out they are, like planets move slower the farther they are from the Sun. As the gravity from the galaxy would require faster velocities the closer to the center to keep in orbit around the galaxy, much as satellites have to move faster to stay in orbit the closer they are to Earth. The same speeds of stars independent of distance from the center would mean stars that exceeded the escape velocity of the galaxy would eventually fall out of the galaxy while those below the necessary speed would fall inward. This would mean the disruption of the galaxy, dispersing it outward and condensing the rest. The only explanation for this is that there must be much more mass in the galaxy and particularly in its halo than is visible. This unseen matter has been labeled dark matter and accounts for 90% of the matter in the galaxy.
However, angular momentum again appears to be a major problem. Contraction of rotating gas cloud tends to concentrate matter within its center rather than its exterior. In the evolution of the solar system, where 99% of the matter concentrates in its center, the star, and a similar thing can be expected to occur in galactic sized clouds. However, what is found is that the size of the bulge differs in various galaxies. Galactic bulges can contain all the mass in elliptical galaxies and almost none in some cases. There is virtually no explanation for why the majority of galaxies do not have large central bulges. This is made even worse with the addition of vast amounts of dark matter in the exterior regions of the galaxy.
Furthermore, astronomers can actually see into the past to verify these theories to some extent. The deeper into space they look, the longer it would take light to reach the Earth, and the older the picture the light presents becomes. Recent studies peering deep into this early universe have revealed some fascinating facts about this early universe of 3 to 6 billion years after its proposed start. It was found that they were much more metal-rich than predicted. Furthermore, they appear as mature galaxies rather than protogalaxies colliding.
Additional problems occur with the age of stars. The predicted ages of stars often conflict with the age of the universe. Members of our own galaxy often fall very close to the age of the universe if not exceeding it. Obviously, it stars are older than the universe, then one of these theories or both must be wrong.
********
Thus, the process of forming galaxies is relatively unknown with only the vaguest theories and little supporting evidence. This is shown by the constant tweaking needed to establish the theory. These theories again can not explain the problems of angular momentum. Again, the ignorance of observations seem to run faster than the arrogance of science in trying to define origins for things they do not even have all the facts for.
VI. Stellar Evolution
The ancient Greeks believed the Sun was composed of pure metal or even light. William Herschel proposed in 1794 that the Sun was a dark, solid body surrounded by glowing clouds. The sunspots or gaps in these clouds showed the surface below. It was further postulated that this dark surface was composed of coal burning to create the Sun's heat. J.R. Mayer calculated in 1854 that the coal would have burnt out before the last 5000 years. He suggested that this heat was supplemented by the impact of meteors. Hermann von Helmholtz suggested that gravitational collapse could also produce the Sun's energy. The star collapsing would heat the interior.
In 1862, Lord Kelvin preferred the impact theory, but calculated the energy that would be produced by each of the three processes. A chemical reaction such as coal burning would only produce enough energy for 3000 years. Impacts by meteors would produce energy for 20 million years. Gravitational collapse would mean the Sun would only have to shrink 27 meters a year and would produce energy for 30 million years. This provoked a conflict between physicists and biologists who needed a longer lifespan for the Sun and Earth for the development of life. Darwin even removed his estimate of the erosion of Weald valley of 300 million years from the Origin of Species due to this evidence.
In 1903, Pierre Curie found that radioactive radium salts generated heat thereby producing their own energy. George Darwin and others almost immediately claimed this might be a source of energy for the Sun, before it was really even understood. In 1920, Arthur Eddington proposed that hydrogen could be converted into helium in the Sun converting the .7% difference in mass into energy per Einstein's equations, which would allow the Sun at maximum to emit energy for 100 billion years. As shown above within three decades after 1928, Gamow and Bethe developed nuclear fusion paths that emitted energy and this fusion reaction was theorized to power the Sun. 560 billion kilograms of hydrogen must be converted to helium with 3.9 billion kilograms converted to energy every second. In 10 billion years, this would convert just under 9% of the Sun's mass.
However, the evidence for this may be lacking. Since any such reactions would be hidden from observation by the bulk of the Sun's mass, the only evidence possible are particles that can bypass that mass. Such particles are thought to be neutrinos that would be created by the fusion process. Neutrinos are a hypothetical particle created to explain missing mass and momentum from certain reactions. They do not react with electromagnetic or the strong force and so are extremely unreactive with matter. Experiments to measure the neutrinos from the Sun continually show a large discrepancy from the predicted amount. Only 37% of the predicted neutrinos are detected. Cosmic rays that impact Earth's atmosphere also generate a shower of particles including neutrinos of higher energy. These also show only 65% of the predicted amount of neutrinos. Instead of doubting the theory of nuclear fission within the Sun, scientists instead decided to change the nature of the hypothetical neutrino. They now decide that it might oscillate between having mass and not having mass and also between different kinds of neutrinos.
Even within evolutionary theory, logically the Sun initially would have had a solid core like Jupiter and other gas giants are proposed to have. While radioactive materials are relatively scarce in the outer layers of the Sun, these elements being more than four times heavier than iron would certainly concentrate in the core of gaseous protostars. This would be a natural outcome for any heavy metals sinking. If the current concentration of radioactive materials in the crust alone also occurred in the sun, then there would be 221.8 Earth masses worth of uranium and 826 Earth masses of thorium within the core of the Sun. This would account for less than .3% of the mass of the Sun. Since this decay is thought to produce neutrinos of the same energy as the fusion reaction thought to be dominant within the Sun, this could be the source of the significantly lower amount of neutrinos coming from the Sun. While the mere decay of this material would only provide a fraction of the energy of the Sun, this might be increased by the gravitational concentration of this material producing chain reactions within the material as well as other nuclear reactions produced by the pressure and temperature. Instead however, science prefers to think of the Sun as homogenous with the elements in its outer layers, as it does not do with any other large object in the solar system.
Most striking about the evolutionary theories of the Sun is that it predicts that the Sun did not always produce the same amount of energy. Theory states that the Sun would be twenty-five percent cooler than presently but the Earth was actually hotter than present during this period. Presently, the Earth is heated to 6?C (42?F) with greenhouse gases increasing this to 15?C (60?F). With the decrease in heat, a young Earth would only be heated to -77?C (-108?F) with greenhouse gases having to raise the temperature of the Earth by over ninety-five degrees Celsius instead of the nine degrees presently caused by such gases. The problem with this is that a large amount of greenhouse gases can cause a runaway effect such as occurs on Venus. Once the atmosphere overheats it would be difficult to cool. All of these problems perhaps throws doubt on evolutionary theories of star formation.
VII. Anthropic Principle
Throughout the twentieth century, physicists in particular have been struck by the precise nature in which the universe seems oriented toward allowing a universe hospitable to life and complexity. These include everything from the strength of natural forces over a universal scale to placement in time in the scheme of the Big Bang to local conditions of the placement and characteristics of the Earth. Given that science believes all the forces in operation in the universe to be manifestations of one unified force, there should be no reason for the vast differences in some of their strengths. The fortunate nature of these circumstances then has given rise to the anthropic principle, which unlike the cosmological principle, looks at the nature of the universe from the viewpoint of mankind and how it seems to be structured to allow life to exist.
The following is a short list of these parameters that operate on a universal level to affect a complex universe:
Universal conditions
The electromagnetic force is 1039 times stronger than the force of gravity. If comparable, gravity would have collapsed stars and the universe.
Mass of electron is less than difference of masses of neutron and proton allowing neutrons to decay into proton, electron and anti-neutrino. If they were the same, neutrons would be stable and all protons would fuse into stable neutrons leaving no elements.
Neutron mass is heavier than the proton, but not heavy enough so it can not be bound in atomic nuclei where it becomes stable and allows elements other than hydrogen to form.
If the strong nuclear force binding the nucleus of atoms together was 2% stronger, then protons would fuse causing the Sun to explode. Atomic hydrogen would also be nonexistent and the only atoms formed would consist of two protons. If the strong nuclear force was 9% weaker, then deuterium and higher mass elements would not exist and only hydrogen would be present.
There are also numerous conditions in a more local area to Earth that enable life to even exist. Presumably these would also be necessary for the majority of life as they allow for a stable environment. The following is a list of these conditions:
Local conditions
The Sun is far enough away from galactic center to be free of gravity effects of bulge. If it were closer gravity from the massive core of the galaxy would perturb orbits and also cause more comets and asteroids to swing into orbits of the inner planets.
The Sun has an unusual circular orbit around galaxy and the same rotation rate as galactic arms. This allows the solar system to minimize exposure to the galactic arm, which is relatively hostile with gravitational perturbations and increased exposure to supernovae.
The Sun is metal-rich compared to other stars. This means the solar system is metal rich-also and allows for the metallic planets, a stable surface, and the exotic chemistry they allow.
The Sun does not have another star orbiting it. Another star orbiting the Sun would severely limit the area of stable orbits around either star. Furthermore, this stable area would have to be far enough from both stars to be cool enough for volatile chemicals like water to form liquids and close enough so most volatile chemicals would not freeze. These first four qualities drop the Sun down to less than 2.5 percent of stars.
The Sun has enough mass to generate enough light and heat. Since 70 to 90 percent of all stars are red dwarves which generate less than three percent of the energy of the Sun. Smaller stars would require a planet to be much closer which would gravitationally lock the planet so that only one side of planet would face the star as Mercury does. This would cause extremes of temperature being very hot on day side and very cold on night side. This quality lowers the Sun down to 1.75 percent of stars.
The Sun is stable enough to generate light without catastrophic expansions. Many stars are unstable giving off large emanations of gas or having a variable size. The Sun's stability allows a stable environment on Earth.
The large Jovian planets exist far enough away to deflect comets and asteroids and not disrupt orbit of Earth. This prevents many collisions from impacting Earth.
The Earth is not too far or near Sun. Again this allows a range of temperature that volatile chemicals can be liquid, most importantly water.
The Earth maintains a roughly circular orbit. This also keeps the Earth in a stable temperature range.
The Earth rotates frequently enough to prevent extremes in temperature.
The Earth is tilted to create seasons. This tilt allows for weather patterns that circulate heat and make the planet more temperate. If there was no tilt, there would be no seasons but stable climates from very hot at the equator to very cold at the poles. If the tilt was too far sideways, then days and nights would be seasonal and temperatures would again be more extreme.
It is the only known planet with an extraordinarily large moon. This is thought to stabilize the rotation and axis of the Earth. Without a moon, the axis of the Earth is thought to not be stable over time, again causing extremes of temperature.
It is the only known planet with atmosphere not too thick or thin. If it was too thick, then the pressure and heat would be too intense. If too thin, the pressure and heat would be too rarefied.
It is the only known planet with any sizeable quantity of water. Without water, plate tectonics would not function and carbon dioxide would build up in atmosphere causing Earth to be far too hot for life.
It is the only known planet with unique atmosphere of a lot of oxygen. Without oxygen existing as a gas, only some bacteria could survive.
It is the only known planet with unique atmosphere of a lot of nitrogen. Because of its reactive nature, oxygen is destructive to organic chemicals. Without nitrogen in our atmosphere, oxygen would be far more damaging than it is now. Pure oxygen atmospheres are damaging to tissues. Furthermore, the nitrogen in the atmosphere aids in plant growth after being fixed by bacteria.
The Earth is large enough to have gravity that retains oxygen and nitrogen and just barely, water vapor. If Earth were a little smaller and water vapor would be lost to space slowly draining the water from the planet over time.
The Earth has molten interior which causes magnetic field and plate tectonics. Without a magnetic field, then cosmic and solar radiation would destroy organic chemicals and slowly bleed away the atmosphere. Without plate movement, carbon would not be freed from the crust and carbon dioxide would slowly be lost from the atmosphere and the planet would grow cold.
Science struggles for explanations for these seeming coincidences other than to assume pure chance. Some have invented an entire infinity of alternate universes in order to explain why the universe is so hospitable to complexity. They imagine an infinite number of universes with differing properties of space and matter with no proof of the existence of such universes. They explain our universe as merely a lucky one, which gained favorable properties by chance allowing the conditions for humanity. These conditions are said to be noticed only because without life, nothing would be around to notice them.
However, the invention of not just others, but innumerable universes to explain fortuitous properties in our own universe seems overkill at the very least. Would it not be far simpler to assume that there is a directing force making the universe oriented toward life. This will be discussed in more detail in the next chapter. However, this shows the lengths to which science will try to devise alternate means rather than accept anything like a directing principle.
VIII. Conclusions
Science unaccountably seeks to discover the origins of the structures that we see around us. However, our evidence from which to make theories is extremely limited. Science can only examine the universe in the present and in extremely limited ways. They only have one perspective on the universe, limited by our extremely small presence within the universe. Their studies have shown the limits of this perspective by announcing that over seventy percent of the mass in the universe is unknown as to its properties and composition over than its one property of mass, as well as dark and unknown forces that hold vast influences over the universe. Yet this is only perhaps the start of the inquiry into the nature of the universe and there are many more unknowns to find.
However in their arrogance, which is really what it is, scientists have deemed to not only theorize speculatively on origins of the universe, galaxies, and stars, but to actually deem these theories proved and true. This is not science, but merely a pseudoscientific effort to complete the grand theory attempted by Lamarck and Haeckel. It is amazing that scientists continue to spend their lifetimes working on what is essentially a thought-game.
The largest such thought-game is the Big Bang theory. This thought-game is based solely on the interpretation that red-shift denotes a light source moving away from the Earth. This then denotes expansion of the universe and following it backwards in time with one model only to produce the big bang.
However there are large problems with this theory. The origin of the energy that formed the explosion is merely ignored. A rapid expansion is then added to the theory multitudes of times faster than the speed of light to allow the universe to form without accounting for what started it, how it proceeded, or what caused it to stop. The fact that when this energy converted into matter it would immediately collapse into a black hole is ignored. Even with excuses of rapid expansion and bending laws of physics, a large portion of matter would still collapse back into a black hole. Then, there is the fact that this matter would convert into equal portions of matter and antimatter, while antimatter is unknown in the universe. This explosion is then made the correct temperature to allow for the formation of enough elements that are currently dispersed around the universe or at least the five percent that has been observed. It is almost amusing that this contrived extrapolation of temperature and time to produce a lot of hydrogen and helium is then used as evidence for the theory. Basically, it produces the right percentages of elements and must be true without knowledge that conditions were set to produce those amounts. In other words, science tends to often find what its looking for.
However, the problems with the big bang theory only begin with its beginning. The evidence for the big bang, the cosmic background radiation, is almost half of its predicted value. Then after removing the red-shift and blue-shift of the local group moving unexplainably fast, it is still too uniform. It can not account for the apparent isolation of matter into superclusters and filaments between huge voids. The space between galaxies also seems to be accelerating its expansion rather than slowing down as they would predict. This requires the additional of unknown expansive force associated with empty space. There is also evidence that red-shift itself may be quantized rather than the smooth curve expansion would imply, which means the very basis of the big bang theory might be a mere effect of space or matter.
The formation of the Big bang into galaxies is also problematic. There is no explanation for the separation of matter into the protogalactic clouds. These are just assumed to form somehow. The explosion of gas according to the background radiation would seemingly proceed outward uniformly in an ever expanding sphere. It seems unlikely that this spherical shell would collapse into clouds. How these clouds began to rotate, which is necessary to explain how their final forms are rotating, is also unexplained. These are all just assumed to happen.
Computer models of galaxies also fail to predict the formation of galaxies, as they tend to form galaxies with large bulges in the center with not enough matter in the rings. This does not match the existing structures of galaxies at all. There are also problems as to how the early supernovas in the galactic bulge would transfer their metallic elements to the rings to form the metal-rich stars that exist there.
The discovery that ninety percent of the mass in the galaxy may not visible further complicates any models of galaxy formation, since presumably this matter did not move into the galactic bulge as much as visible matter did. This huge amount of matter is invented to explain why the stars within galaxies appear to be rotating at the same speed. If they formed by gravitational collapse then these speeds could not be achieved. Moreover, the fact that they appear to move at nearly the same speeds further seems unlikely to arise by chance.
The theory as to formation of stars also develops problems, such as the formation of elements heavier than lithium. As shown, nuclear reactions can only produce an extremely unstable form of beryllium as it collides with helium breaking apart in extremely small fraction of second. This then forms unstable carbon which must manage to give off energy also in an extreme fraction of a second or else it too breaks apart. It is an extremely unlikely event, yet this is thought to produce all heavier elements than hydrogen, helium, and lithium in the relatively brief events of supernovae.
Even then, there is no process to distribute these heavier metals other than expansion of gas at sub-light speeds. There is no known process to transfer these elements from the galactic bulge where the first supernovae are thought to occur. Stars are incredibly far apart from each other, and yet science would have us believe that supernovae occurred relatively near every metal-rich star. Furthermore, this would have to collide with gas that somehow is not accelerated away by the massive waves of gamma radiation that precede it. This seems unlikely.
The problems with the theories on the formation of the solar system have also been shown, such as the problems of angular momentum, inclination of planets, rotational discrepancies, and distribution of elements. In any forming solar system, the angular momentum should follow mass, yet the Sun does not have the necessary angular momentum that its mass requires. The planets have far too much. Any mechanism to transfer this momentum would also disrupt the forming solar system, either transferring mass with it or accelerating the nebula away from the forming star. Any forming magnetic field would also achieve the same result. The inclination and rotation of planets is also at odds, since they should all have the same inclination and rotation as the forming nebula. Instead, they vary wildly with every planet being inclined greatly. Two planets are inclined greatly and even rotate backwards. Even the Sun is inclined, which is unexplainable by the current explanation for such facts as collision events. The distribution of elements is further complicated as no smooth relationships are found. Each planet seems to be unique and does not bear a relationship to any primordial nebula or even the composition of the Sun. Helium and hydrogen percentages in Uranus, Neptune, and Saturn do not match that of Jupiter and the Sun. The large presence of Silicon and Magnesium in the Earth is also unexplained as well as the lack of Neon and Carbon. Furthermore, gravitational separation of elements should have concentrated most heavy elements within the Sun and in particular the Sun's core, which would seem to make any fusion within the Sun much less likely.
The problems with the evolution of the Earth-Moon system are also apparent. No explanation of evolution can account for all the evidence. The lack of iron means it could not have come from the core of any large planet. The same isotopes of oxygen mean both Earth and Moon must have formed at same distance from Sun and not involved any body too far outside this distance. The lack of volatile chemicals on the moon implies a different origin of the Moon from the Earth or that the Moon burned off these chemicals while the Earth did not. The angular momentum of the system also forms a problem for any theory of origin. The size of the Moon is also a unique feature of this system, far outside the norm of the solar system. The closest theory to explain even some of these features is highly contrived using an impact from a very large body with precise masses of the impactor and original planet Earth at precise angles of impact, and precise size of matter clumps ejected from the Earth. The highly contrived manner of this model would seem to make it unlikely and seems unlikely for the impactor to also have the same isotopes of oxygen as the other two bodies.
The formation of the Earth is also seemingly unexplained. It does not seem to have ever been in a molten state in any layers except the outer core and the very uppermost mantle. The existence of heavy metals in the crust that have not fractionated due to gravity and would have fallen into the core if molten seems to prove this. High pressure further keeps the mantle from melting under heat with only the liquid outer core finally succumbing to the heat. Science also believes a relic from 1600 that the Earth's core is composed of iron to account for its magnetic field even though later evidence shows the heat at the core would demagnetize iron. Yet science still assumes this ``fact.''
The formation of various features of the crust is also unaccounted for such as the atmosphere, oceans, and continents.
EARTH
BASALT/GRANITE CRUST FORMATION
NO SOURCE FOR OCEANS, CRUST/COMET/ASTEROID
NO ORIGIN OF CONTINENTS
ASSUMPTION OF ATMOSPHERE
ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE
FRIENDLY UNIVERSE, COMPLEXITY AND LIFE
CREATION OF HEAVY ELEMENTS AND STARS
HABITABLE EARTH
ALLUDE NEXT CHAPTER
Tidal forces would have been immense also. These forces are the cubed inverse of the distance, which means that tidal forces at 22,500 km would be 4800 times greater than present. Imagine ocean tides 4800 times higher.
Good gravy. So much ignorance on display. One point by way of example: A rotating and collapsing nebula will not produce uniform rotation, due to this little thing called 'turbulence'. There -will- be variations due to random chance, including the possibility of retrograde rotation.
Incidentally, the moons of Uranus -would- be expected to be dragged into equatorial orbits over several billion years by tidal and other third-order gravitational effects. Try learning something about orbital mechanics before making pronouncements on how it works.
Good gravy. So much ignorance on display. One point by way of example: A rotating and collapsing neb
Apparently you aren't aware that 'conservation' does not mean 'even distribution'. The original nebula has X amount. The resulting solar system also has X amount, and if some bits now have a 'negative' value compared to the original, other bits have a little extra to make up.
Basic Physics 101 stuff. For someone who claims to have a science education, you seem to be missing a lot of the basics.
Apparently you aren't aware that 'conservation' does not mean 'even distribution'. The original nebu
Oh basic physics, how cute. Have you even taken calculus? Conservation means to turn things going the other way, you need force applied to do so. Where did this supposed opposing force come from if its all rotating the same way to begin with, otherwise you have no collapse of nebula. Also how did 90% of this momentum somehow get transferred to planets from sun which has 98% of mass. Reasons why the solar system is impossible methinks.
Oh basic physics, how cute. Have you even taken calculus? Conservation means to turn things going
No.... conservation means that the total quantity is constant in the absence of exterior forces. Internal forces can distribute it unequally within the conserved system. And as stated before, you have stochastic turbulence within a nebula to provide said forces.
The transfer from the core to the outliers is trickier, but given that the high angular-momentum material will pull free from the central collapse, it's not an insuperable problem. And again, research material, not disproof. Not knowing is far different from knowing it's not.
No.... conservation means that the total quantity is constant in the absence of exterior forces. Int
Internal forces cancel out, dumbass. LOL....and no. angular momentum follows mass M L2T−1...you cant conserve momentum of 98% of mass, and 90% of momentum transferred to the 2% of mass. Or don't you know physics.
dodged question, have you ever passed a single calculus course? You seem to dodge a lot.
Internal forces cancel out, dumbass. LOL....and no. angular momentum follows mass M L2T−1...you c
Internal forces cancel out in terms of net conservation. Doesn't mean they can't act in opposition to each other. You do realize that an explosion maintains conservation of momentum and is due to internal forces, don't you? And yes, you can transfer most of momentum to a small parcel of the original mass, as long as sum(mv) remains constant. The more you talk, the more you demonstrate your lack of mathematical rigor.
And yes, I have passed and taught calculus at collegiate level.
Internal forces cancel out in terms of net conservation. Doesn't mean they can't act in opposition t
there has to be a force to transfer that momentum and whoops, no idea what that is. Another WE WILL FIND THE ANSWERS IN THE FUTURE thing no? except its been over 160 years and still waiting.....
there has to be a force to transfer that momentum and whoops, no idea what that is. Another WE WILL
The forces in question in the case of a nebula are gravitational interaction interspersed with stochastic collisions between individual particles. We do know this one. Most of the questions we currently have are relatively young, since we didn't know enough to ask them until recently. Computer modeling has been helpful as well, now that we have sufficient computing capacity to model complex three-D interactions. Seriously, bleating 'we don't know the answers' when we actually do is not helping your case at all...
The forces in question in the case of a nebula are gravitational interaction interspersed with stoch
The problem with computer modeling is its extremely limited and tends to lead to results you want, as YOU have to put in input factors and then say OH this 1 model out of 1 million+ showed how results compare with real life. See computer models of formation of moon, where one out of millions of computer models produced desired result with predetermined inputs as to size of ejecta, etc...so probability of it actually occurring is less than 1/1 million+ but shh we need a result that says same thing as reality as its the ONLY answer. It's also not science, but contrived things to show hey were still relevant.
So no you dont know the answers, YOU were the one saying have faith in our lord science that answers will be found. An improbable theory or computer model DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE, just highly improbably. Sorry if you in your religious fervor for your modern creation myths dont understand that. Also if you have to trust in future explanations, its a cult not SCIENCE, dont you get that?
I noticed you stopped responding to many questions posed to you. How did first cells form (your excuse...not part of theory so nonaswer...no wonder you didnt want to respond, but passed the buck), how did bacteria turn into eukaryotes (totally ignored this, as Dunning-Kruger Effect LOL) when both transformations are biochemically impossible....also more in your line I am guessing, why are half the planets supposed to form in collisions of planets, while none are knocked out of orbit? How is moon formed with so much less density, but same chemical composition of earth, at exact distance to be viewed at same size as sun (there was a book written saying how improbable moon was, saying either aliens or time traveling humans from future made it, but certainly not god, the obvious answer to the problem.)
The problem with computer modeling is its extremely limited and tends to lead to results you want, a
