| |
| Uranus and Neptune |  influential power to construct the superior planets of our solar system, Uranus and Neptune. And really that's where existing postulation, the accretion theory, collapses.
Because the star itself does not produce enough gravitational force to construct these two planets, it would be fair to say we should have no further truck with established scientific belief on this subject, unless of course we can expand the natural remit of the star's gravitational influence. However, if the star, our sun, is as science suggests, a configurated ball of gaseous material, then there is no possibility of extra gravity being produced from it - and thus, the postulate at that time becomes redundant. Although I wasn't quite prepared to give up on it so easily.
I figured the flaw lay in our interpretation of the sun, and every other star in the heavens, just as Copernicus did with the Geocentric system.
To envisage what I say next, you need to put established thought to the back of your mind. Picture an exploding star which showers a newly formed solar system with embryonic material, just like a volcano spitting hot molten lava. As this material is ejected in to the nether wastes of space, the star will quickly exhaust all its proto-material,and leave nothing in its wake other than a huge raging nuclear vacuum. With little, or nothing to continue this burning the star will collapse.
At this point, what we end-up with is not a consolidated burning ball of gas, surrounded by regional waste material, but a violent vortex, crushing hydrogen atoms and maintaining the fission reaction. This process would continue over millions of years, until the hydrogen itself starts to peter.
It's then, the surrounding peripheral material will experience a cooling of the newly formed solar system and will return towards the star.
From the above you can clearly identify two different postulates now, one from science which offers a star burning as a globular ball of gas with no opportunity to increase its potential heat application at any definitive point in its history. And two, a new theory showing our star as a vortex, a vortex with the potential to swallow back the material it first ejected. However, we now enter a paradox, for although the sun (star) will try to reclaim the material it spat-out, the duration for this will become somewhat protracted. Simply wishing to gather in its former material is no longer an option.
As a thought experiment, you might like to analogise. Imagine a man trying to pour petrol on a weak fire.
He might approach within touching distance, but the moment the petrol meets with the flame, the fire will explode and drive him further away, and so his chance of pouring more petrol on the fire is limited. Until the fire subsides, the man can not safely approach the fire.
The new theory here would be strikingly similar, although with a subtle difference.
When our new star collapses back as a vortex, the star will gradually cool. As the cool effect of the star reduces the gravitational influence in the solar system, all material must naturally fall to the lowest place: ie the star itself.
Without a steady heat application from the newly formed star, there is no longer any productive power to keep the material in orbit. Yet once this material, dust and debris makes contact with the vortex, it must logically ignite, heat return to the star and the burning principle commence allover again. And just like the man pouring petrol of the fire, secondary material must distance itself from the heat, gravity return and the process continue.
Solar System
The Solar System 2
|
|
| |
|
» 
