Post by nicholashesed on Feb 25, 2014 16:08:01 GMT
A few years ago a philosophy major by the name of Anthony J. Abruzzo comes up with the stunning fundamental assumption that planets are the end products not the byproducts of stellar evolution. In other words stars evolve into planets. Planet Earth and all the planets of our system and of all systems are old stars. This assumption is rational and consistent with observation, ESPECIALLY in light of all the new Kepler data of the exoplanets. The Nebular Hypothesis is IMHO dead. But the planetary scientists have put a lot of work into that artifice. And so it will die a slow death.
Here is the link to his series of research papers:
www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals-Papers/Author/274/Anthony%20J.,%20Abruzzo
Some quotes from his papers:
From: Are Planets the End Products Rather than the By-Products of Stellar Evolution?
Article Summary:
This article presents a new hypothetical framework for planet formation that utilizes a
transformation rather than a derivation mechanism. Since this transformation mechanism takes a
different approach to planet formation, it radically departs from orthodoxy in this field, an
orthodoxy whose foundation, in my view, is built on the inherently unstable ground of the
nebular or accretion hypothesis in all of its permutations.
From: Interpretations of Solar System Phenomena according to the Transformation Hypothesis
Introduction
A previous paper presented a framework whereby planets can be viewed as end products rather
than by-products of stellar evolution.(1) It was pointed out that Descartes first proposed this
hypothesis in the 17th century but for reasons also briefly discussed therein, his idea was lost to
all but historians of science. Nonetheless, I suggested that the central idea animating Descartes’
planetogony – what is being called the “transformation hypothesis” - holds the key to
understanding how planets form. Unlike the nebular or “derivative hypothesis,” as I call it, in all
of its permutations, which proposes that planets form from material derived from proto-stars in
one process, the transformation hypothesis views individual planets as later stages in the
evolution of individual stars. Thus, the transformation hypothesis can be viewed as the natural
history of stellar objects as they evolve through various stages. While the purpose of the
previous paper was to lay the general groundwork of the transformation hypothesis, this paper
will interpret specific phenomena in our own Solar System according to it.
From: The Formation and Age of the Solar System
In conclusion, it can be stated that the Solar System is as old as the time when the Sun began to
acquire planets, since by definition a solar system is a central stellar object that has at least one
planet in orbit around it. However, at this time of acquisition, the planet or planets that gave rise
to the “system” were already in existence and were not formed in the same process from which
the Sun was formed. This condition of preexistence is, in essence, the negation of the derivative
hypothesis. It is just as likely as not, that the Sun formed in a region of space that was already
populated by non-stellar objects and that some of them, by their relative proximity to the forming
Sun, were attracted to it and subsequently captured. But it should be clear that the sequence of
capture events and the chaos that must have prevailed during each of these events cannot be
determined with any degree of rigor at this time. Inventing a capture event scheme now would
amount to sheer guesswork. Nonetheless, as our knowledge of the Solar System continues to grow,
the time may come when the delineation of such a scheme will become possible with some
degree of certainty.
From: Brown Dwarf Stars – The “Missing Link”
Conclusion
It is hoped that the foregoing analysis has provided the reader with an insight into the
confusion that currently exists in conventional stellar and planet formation theories. The
misapplication of the “missing link” concept demonstrates that the line separating stellar
objects from planetary objects is no longer clear. But, hampered by their adherence to
outdated notions regarding the evolution of stars and planets, conventional theorists will
continue to stumble over the mounting anomalous data that observational astronomers are
dropping in their path. On the other hand, the missing link concept makes perfect sense
within the context of the transformation hypothesis. The brown dwarf object is but one
link in an evolutionary chain that extends from the hottest and heaviest stars to the
coolest and lightest spherical dwarf planets.
From: The Transformation of Gas Giant Planets into Rocky Planets
Introduction
This is the fifth in a series of papers whose purpose has been to introduce and explore the
implications of the transformation hypothesis. In brief, the transformation hypothesis
views planets as the end products rather than the by-products of stellar evolution. Put
more simply, stars evolve into planets.(1) Although the subject of this paper has already
been touched upon in the previous papers, its purpose is to examine further the processes
that transform gas giant planets into rocky planets and highlight an external mechanism
to which some gas giants are subjected that accelerates this transformation process.
From: The Planet Migration Hypothesis - Saving the Paradigm
Conclusion
While the observed resonances existing amongst the various bodies in the Solar System,
with one or two exceptions, are empirically verifiable, there is no theoretical justification
to use them as the foundation upon which a “new and improved” derivative hypothesis
can be erected. And, since the resonances, at least those obtaining with respect to the gas
and ice giants, stand on the shaky footing of the planetesimal mechanism, for which there
is no empirical evidence, the planet migration hypothesis reveals itself as merely another
“epicycle” whose sole purpose is to save the appearances, which, in this case, is how the
nebular or derivative hypothesis adequately accounts for the Solar System’s formation
and current constitution.
Indeed, some of the more candid researchers in this field view their work as nothing more
than imaginative exercises that seek to account for some elements of the Solar System’s
initial formation and further evolution to its present overall configuration. In fact, one
particular research team that has done work on the formation and migrations of the gas
and ice giant planets actually includes “Fairy Tale” in the title of one of its papers.(7) In
the introduction to this paper, the team unabashedly observes, “Our model…contains
elements that are probably wrong in detail. However, large portions of it may be correct
and it illustrates the lengths to which we must go in order to understand the formation of
these planets.”(8) Implicit in this statement is the team’s adherence to the underlying
paradigm of the planetesimal-type derivative hypothesis.
In general, the planetesimal version of the derivative hypothesis is the unquestioned
premise from which all of the planet migration hypotheses spring. It is obvious that
without the formation of these small, solid bodies from the dust and gas of the primordial
disk surrounding the proto-Sun, not only would no planet migrations have occurred, but
also no planets would have formed. The entire edifice is based on the presumed
existence of planetesimals.(9) And, it is so firmly entrenched as a premise beyond
dispute that a perusal of the relevant literature will yield a diversity of opinions bearing
on the possible mechanisms operative during the planetesimal formation process
itself.
However, no amount of patching and tinkering can save this paradigm from its inherent
flaws. Nonetheless, one wonders to what lengths the advocates of the derivative
hypothesis would go to save appearances if an Earth-like planet were discovered orbiting
the Sun in the far reaches of the Kuiper Belt or further out in the scattered disk? Such a
discovery – certainly within the realm of possibility – would surely result in the
production of new and “enhanced” computer-simulated “fairy tales” seeking to explain
why and how such a large object could exist so far from the Sun, within the context of the
planetesimal paradigm.
Summing up, it is clear that the planet migration hypothesis fails as a building element in
the Solar System’s “final” architecture because it is incorporated into the derivative
hypothesis, which views the Solar System as having formed from one unitary
evolutionary process. The transformation hypothesis, on the other hand, views the Solar
“System” as essentially a work in progress, wherein the architecture is continually subject
to change. Sometimes these changes are gradual and virtually unnoticeable, while at
other times, they are abrupt and “catastrophic.” Conventional planetology will remain
trapped in its theoretical dead end until this reality is grasped and accepted.
From: The Origins of the Nebular Hypothesis - Or the Genesis of a Theoretical Cul-de-sac
Although the nebular hypothesis has risen to a paradigmatic status within the corpus of the
conventional astrophysical sciences, it is still just a hypothesis. And, as such, it is subject
to eventual supersession, as are all outmoded hypotheses, if it cannot support the
incorporation of new data that proves inconsistent or “anomalous,” in the Kuhnian sense,
with its theoretical architecture. In previous papers, I have endeavored to present these
inconsistencies, as they relate to both established facts about the Solar System and new
facts about it and exo-solar systems, and reinterpret them within the framework of the
transformation hypothesis.
This paper will examine the origins of the nebular hypothesis. It is generally believed
that the nebular hypothesis was developed during The Enlightenment, but its roots can be
traced back to a few Renaissance thinkers and ultimately to the speculations of several
ancient Greek philosophers. It is hoped that the historical sketch to follow will help to
shed light for the reader on how the nebular hypothesis has become so firmly entrenched
in contemporary science even though its central conception has no bearing on the
formation of solar systems.
However, it will not examine the several varieties of catastrophic hypotheses for the Solar
System’s formation that have been promulgated over the past two and a half centuries,
whose lineage can be traced back to 1745, in the work of Buffon. Nonetheless, as was
pointed out in the first paper of this series, these catastrophic hypotheses are classified as
“derivative” hypotheses in the sense that the material from which the planets are formed
comes from the debris that is blasted from the Sun, either by another passing star or a
very big comet after a collision or interaction has occurred.
Here is the link to his series of research papers:
www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals-Papers/Author/274/Anthony%20J.,%20Abruzzo
Some quotes from his papers:
From: Are Planets the End Products Rather than the By-Products of Stellar Evolution?
Article Summary:
This article presents a new hypothetical framework for planet formation that utilizes a
transformation rather than a derivation mechanism. Since this transformation mechanism takes a
different approach to planet formation, it radically departs from orthodoxy in this field, an
orthodoxy whose foundation, in my view, is built on the inherently unstable ground of the
nebular or accretion hypothesis in all of its permutations.
From: Interpretations of Solar System Phenomena according to the Transformation Hypothesis
Introduction
A previous paper presented a framework whereby planets can be viewed as end products rather
than by-products of stellar evolution.(1) It was pointed out that Descartes first proposed this
hypothesis in the 17th century but for reasons also briefly discussed therein, his idea was lost to
all but historians of science. Nonetheless, I suggested that the central idea animating Descartes’
planetogony – what is being called the “transformation hypothesis” - holds the key to
understanding how planets form. Unlike the nebular or “derivative hypothesis,” as I call it, in all
of its permutations, which proposes that planets form from material derived from proto-stars in
one process, the transformation hypothesis views individual planets as later stages in the
evolution of individual stars. Thus, the transformation hypothesis can be viewed as the natural
history of stellar objects as they evolve through various stages. While the purpose of the
previous paper was to lay the general groundwork of the transformation hypothesis, this paper
will interpret specific phenomena in our own Solar System according to it.
From: The Formation and Age of the Solar System
In conclusion, it can be stated that the Solar System is as old as the time when the Sun began to
acquire planets, since by definition a solar system is a central stellar object that has at least one
planet in orbit around it. However, at this time of acquisition, the planet or planets that gave rise
to the “system” were already in existence and were not formed in the same process from which
the Sun was formed. This condition of preexistence is, in essence, the negation of the derivative
hypothesis. It is just as likely as not, that the Sun formed in a region of space that was already
populated by non-stellar objects and that some of them, by their relative proximity to the forming
Sun, were attracted to it and subsequently captured. But it should be clear that the sequence of
capture events and the chaos that must have prevailed during each of these events cannot be
determined with any degree of rigor at this time. Inventing a capture event scheme now would
amount to sheer guesswork. Nonetheless, as our knowledge of the Solar System continues to grow,
the time may come when the delineation of such a scheme will become possible with some
degree of certainty.
From: Brown Dwarf Stars – The “Missing Link”
Conclusion
It is hoped that the foregoing analysis has provided the reader with an insight into the
confusion that currently exists in conventional stellar and planet formation theories. The
misapplication of the “missing link” concept demonstrates that the line separating stellar
objects from planetary objects is no longer clear. But, hampered by their adherence to
outdated notions regarding the evolution of stars and planets, conventional theorists will
continue to stumble over the mounting anomalous data that observational astronomers are
dropping in their path. On the other hand, the missing link concept makes perfect sense
within the context of the transformation hypothesis. The brown dwarf object is but one
link in an evolutionary chain that extends from the hottest and heaviest stars to the
coolest and lightest spherical dwarf planets.
From: The Transformation of Gas Giant Planets into Rocky Planets
Introduction
This is the fifth in a series of papers whose purpose has been to introduce and explore the
implications of the transformation hypothesis. In brief, the transformation hypothesis
views planets as the end products rather than the by-products of stellar evolution. Put
more simply, stars evolve into planets.(1) Although the subject of this paper has already
been touched upon in the previous papers, its purpose is to examine further the processes
that transform gas giant planets into rocky planets and highlight an external mechanism
to which some gas giants are subjected that accelerates this transformation process.
From: The Planet Migration Hypothesis - Saving the Paradigm
Conclusion
While the observed resonances existing amongst the various bodies in the Solar System,
with one or two exceptions, are empirically verifiable, there is no theoretical justification
to use them as the foundation upon which a “new and improved” derivative hypothesis
can be erected. And, since the resonances, at least those obtaining with respect to the gas
and ice giants, stand on the shaky footing of the planetesimal mechanism, for which there
is no empirical evidence, the planet migration hypothesis reveals itself as merely another
“epicycle” whose sole purpose is to save the appearances, which, in this case, is how the
nebular or derivative hypothesis adequately accounts for the Solar System’s formation
and current constitution.
Indeed, some of the more candid researchers in this field view their work as nothing more
than imaginative exercises that seek to account for some elements of the Solar System’s
initial formation and further evolution to its present overall configuration. In fact, one
particular research team that has done work on the formation and migrations of the gas
and ice giant planets actually includes “Fairy Tale” in the title of one of its papers.(7) In
the introduction to this paper, the team unabashedly observes, “Our model…contains
elements that are probably wrong in detail. However, large portions of it may be correct
and it illustrates the lengths to which we must go in order to understand the formation of
these planets.”(8) Implicit in this statement is the team’s adherence to the underlying
paradigm of the planetesimal-type derivative hypothesis.
In general, the planetesimal version of the derivative hypothesis is the unquestioned
premise from which all of the planet migration hypotheses spring. It is obvious that
without the formation of these small, solid bodies from the dust and gas of the primordial
disk surrounding the proto-Sun, not only would no planet migrations have occurred, but
also no planets would have formed. The entire edifice is based on the presumed
existence of planetesimals.(9) And, it is so firmly entrenched as a premise beyond
dispute that a perusal of the relevant literature will yield a diversity of opinions bearing
on the possible mechanisms operative during the planetesimal formation process
itself.
However, no amount of patching and tinkering can save this paradigm from its inherent
flaws. Nonetheless, one wonders to what lengths the advocates of the derivative
hypothesis would go to save appearances if an Earth-like planet were discovered orbiting
the Sun in the far reaches of the Kuiper Belt or further out in the scattered disk? Such a
discovery – certainly within the realm of possibility – would surely result in the
production of new and “enhanced” computer-simulated “fairy tales” seeking to explain
why and how such a large object could exist so far from the Sun, within the context of the
planetesimal paradigm.
Summing up, it is clear that the planet migration hypothesis fails as a building element in
the Solar System’s “final” architecture because it is incorporated into the derivative
hypothesis, which views the Solar System as having formed from one unitary
evolutionary process. The transformation hypothesis, on the other hand, views the Solar
“System” as essentially a work in progress, wherein the architecture is continually subject
to change. Sometimes these changes are gradual and virtually unnoticeable, while at
other times, they are abrupt and “catastrophic.” Conventional planetology will remain
trapped in its theoretical dead end until this reality is grasped and accepted.
From: The Origins of the Nebular Hypothesis - Or the Genesis of a Theoretical Cul-de-sac
Although the nebular hypothesis has risen to a paradigmatic status within the corpus of the
conventional astrophysical sciences, it is still just a hypothesis. And, as such, it is subject
to eventual supersession, as are all outmoded hypotheses, if it cannot support the
incorporation of new data that proves inconsistent or “anomalous,” in the Kuhnian sense,
with its theoretical architecture. In previous papers, I have endeavored to present these
inconsistencies, as they relate to both established facts about the Solar System and new
facts about it and exo-solar systems, and reinterpret them within the framework of the
transformation hypothesis.
This paper will examine the origins of the nebular hypothesis. It is generally believed
that the nebular hypothesis was developed during The Enlightenment, but its roots can be
traced back to a few Renaissance thinkers and ultimately to the speculations of several
ancient Greek philosophers. It is hoped that the historical sketch to follow will help to
shed light for the reader on how the nebular hypothesis has become so firmly entrenched
in contemporary science even though its central conception has no bearing on the
formation of solar systems.
However, it will not examine the several varieties of catastrophic hypotheses for the Solar
System’s formation that have been promulgated over the past two and a half centuries,
whose lineage can be traced back to 1745, in the work of Buffon. Nonetheless, as was
pointed out in the first paper of this series, these catastrophic hypotheses are classified as
“derivative” hypotheses in the sense that the material from which the planets are formed
comes from the debris that is blasted from the Sun, either by another passing star or a
very big comet after a collision or interaction has occurred.
