Solar System and Planet Formation

Historic planetary instability and catastrophe. Evidence for electrical scarring on planets and moons. Electrical events in today's solar system. Electric Earth.

Moderators: bboyer, MGmirkin

Posts: 213
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 7:42 am

Re: Solar System and Planet Formation

Unread post by Native » Fri Feb 10, 2012 3:00 am

MGmirkin wrote:

Solar system direction appears to be tangential (moving approximately around the galactic center, though perhaps not perfectly so), not radial (not moving outward as hypothesized)? So... "Not so much?"

Still not buyin' it... Sorry.
AD: MGmirkin! Are you using orthodox science arguments against me ? ;)

Remember the ... he_problem - "Observations of the rotation curve of spirals, however, do not bear this out. Rather, the curves do not decrease in the expected inverse square root relationship but are "flat", i.e. outside of the central bulge the speed is nearly a constant".

That is: The inverse square root speed is nearly a constant which indicates a still slow movement, rigth? And since the rotation curve graph show a faster movement closer to the Milky Way centre, this "nearly constant" movement must show a still slowly outwards direction where the solar system also orbit the galactic centre accordinly to the galactic centre momentum when the solar system and everything else in the galaxy once was created.

To me, this indicates very clearly an outgoing movement as stated before. (This explanation really deals with the galactic rotation problem, don´t you think?)

Regarding your linked image: I think we can agree on magnetic field lines that follows the Milky Way arms? Magnetic fields are rotating around the direction, yes?

How do you think this can affect the "still-image"-measurements in your linked image? Are they reliable?

NB: It is not my intentions to go into a specific mythological debate here, though I used the Stories of Creation as a possible and plausible Solar System formation explanation. So: Let´s stick to the scientific part for a while, OK?

NNB: How come I wasn´t notified on new postings in this tread? (I did marked the notifying box).
Life makes senses and who could doubt it, if you have no doubt about it. - "Grooks" by Piet Hein - My fellow Danish countryman and also a Natural Philosopher

User avatar
nick c
Posts: 2483
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Solar System and Planet Formation

Unread post by nick c » Fri Feb 10, 2012 2:28 pm

What evidence do you present that stars are formed in the galactic center and then migrate outward?
- there is plenty of evidence that stars are often times formed in the spiral arms of galaxies, whether one accepts the consensus view of star formation (gravitational collapse of molecular gas clouds) or the EU version (z pinch). There are numerous clouds of tenuous gas/plasma in the spiral arms populated with what is interpreted (in both mainstream and the EU) as fresh young stars.
-as mentioned above, the movement of the Sun and other stars in the spiral arms does not seem to support the contention that they came from the galactic center (?)
-where do the stars go? do they continue to move away from the galactic center, out and outward until they leave the galaxy?
-you cite the body of, what are labeled by mythologists as, "creation" stories as evidence in support of your contention, however, members of the Thunderbolts team have a very different interpretation of these stories. But that aside (as this is the Planetary Science forum) how could any human or group of humans relate a story about the creation of the solar system, (or universe, or whatever) without having witnessed the event? How would the myth makers have known about the origin of the Earth, Sun, and Solar System, etc. if they themselves had not been created yet?

Posts: 1330
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Solar System and Planet Formation

Unread post by Aardwolf » Fri Feb 10, 2012 5:35 pm

Native wrote:Does it make any sense to you?
It makes perfect sense to me. I have long advocated that the reason galaxies look like Catherine Wheels is because that is exactly how they behave.

With regards to the APOD showing the direction the sun is heading, this is derived from comparson to other local stars in the cluster and just assuming they are rotating around the centre. It does not and cannot be determined from comparison to the centre of the galaxy. It's quite possible that the entire local group (and surrounding groups) are all moving away from the galactic centre.

Posts: 213
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 7:42 am

Re: Solar System and Planet Formation

Unread post by Native » Sun Feb 12, 2012 6:36 am

Hi nick c,
I´ve just produced an explanation that maybe sums it better up:

Universal Spiral and Circuit Formation (USCF)

The very Basics:

1. All formation and motion takes place for ever in the Aether = the all over fluctuating Cosmic Microwave Background = the mythical Primordial Waters = the Unifying Waters = The Unified Field.

2. The Unifying Waters in space contains the 2 general stages of hot and cold, light and darkness.

3. These principles are again connected to the 4 basically and qualitative elements of water; fire; air and soil (particles)

4. Only the basic and natural elements are, though always vibrating, “resting in them selves” in the sphere of the fluctuant Unified Waters (CMB)

5. The universal formation process takes place assembling and dissolving everything in eternity.

The Formative Processes:

6. The basic formation takes place via the principles of electromagnetic and thermodynamic swirling.

7. This swirling principle has 2 significant movements of an inwards and outwards formation turning in circuits in a 3D magnetic sphere.

8. The inwards motion towards the central swirl and “down” in the funnel, dissolve stars and planets in a central rotation via a “knot-cruncher”, also called the Bennett Z-Pinch effect.

9. The outwards motion from the swirling centre transport centrifugally the dissolved amount of gas and particles away from the centre and out in the surrounding magnetic circuit field.

10. This outwards motion horizontally of the rotation plane, takes place when a magnetic field is horizontally on the rotation plane is angularly twisted, creating 2 “tubular” bars with a horizontally and circular swirling motion away from the rotation centre.

11. In this outgoing swirling process, the dissolved gasses and particles are being re-formatted again via the horizontally and circular magnetic swirling processes that continue out in the surrounding spirals in the magnetic circuit fields.

12. The whole formation process describes a circuit formation.

13. These principles can be accounted for as the universal principles that format and dissolve everything for ever.
And I mean everything. From the smallest atom; cell; molecule; organ and living body and plant to the largest star; planet; solar system; galaxy; galaxy cluster; super galaxy clusters and so on. Everything in microcosm and macrocosm in the Universe – that doesn’t change “itself”.
Further comments:

This explanation does not contradict new formations of stars out in the galactic disc because of the continued magnetic swirlings and circuits in the galactic arms. In fact, it confirms very much the very high formation of stars and planets that takes place in the bars of the Milky Way, again indicating an now outgoin formative process. (The structure of the bars and the arms otherwise would not could take an about 90 degree sharp turn from the arms and into the bars if the opposite movement should be argued)

And since I´m talking of a galactic circuit, all objects in the galaxy undergoes a process of formative assembling and dissolving. HOW LONG this process can take place inside a galaxy, I´ve no idea at all, but I assume until our galaxy and the local gruop of galaxies and the local gruop of supercluster and so on - some time in the future also undergoes the same formation process in a superformation somewhere.

NB: That is for the case of the solar system formation this: Our solar system is on a circuit journey in its actual approximately position and it moves slowly further outwards and if my understanding and description is OK, the solar system most likely moves on in this circuit.

What do you say to this?

Fine. Can you elaborate further on your thoughts?

Cheers Native
Life makes senses and who could doubt it, if you have no doubt about it. - "Grooks" by Piet Hein - My fellow Danish countryman and also a Natural Philosopher

Posts: 213
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 7:42 am

Re: Solar System and Planet Formation

Unread post by Native » Sun Feb 12, 2012 7:53 am

nick c,
I forgot to answer you on this: (And now we move a little astray from this topic- even it is closely related)
How would the myth makers have known about the origin of the Earth, Sun, and Solar System, etc. if they themselves had not been created yet?
AD: This cannot be understood unless one definitively accept that humans are made via the very same principles that also goes on in the galaxy. That is: We are formatted via the same elements and the same magnetic forces and therefore we can connect to the formative forces of creation (in the primeval waters) and thereby grasp the in-formations that creates us and everything else.

In other words: We are then talking of an intuitive and introvert way of knowledge.

- As described above, the formative process in our galaxy goes in circuits. The intuitive information is therefore circular and it really has nothing to do with time and history. An intuitive person can to all times connect to any stage of this circuit movement and see how the creation/formation takes place.

So it really doesn´t matter on what historic period you live in, you can always be intuitively connected and get the same informative inspirations - and these inspirations are told and written as the global Stories of Creation. Global because they - of course - all tell the same story because all humans on the Earth lives in the same solar system; in the same galaxy etc. etc.

Cheers Native
Life makes senses and who could doubt it, if you have no doubt about it. - "Grooks" by Piet Hein - My fellow Danish countryman and also a Natural Philosopher

User avatar
Posts: 229
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:54 am
Location: The Phorce

Re: Magnetic Fields Shape Planetary Systems?

Unread post by Phorce » Mon Mar 12, 2012 9:42 am

Why pander to the world above ? They will always promise some impending awakening or change but then never deliver it. It is only from the world below that real change and realisation can come from.

I use the definitions "world above" and "world below" in terms of ruling power structure vs. ordinary people in the world "below". What is it about Electric Universe that really concerns ordinary people ? Cheaper electricity ? A saner science that interferes with their life less and allows them to live fuller lives ?

With an education from ordinary people to other ordinary people of what Electric Universe MEANS to their lives beyond academic definitions of plasma and nebulae, then we have the application of Science to PRACTICAL problems. In my opinion Scientific American has far more to do with the system of profiteering Science to big Corporations who have a vested interest in keeping the confusion going.

Nothing Is Ever Won Without Organizing.
Exploration and discovery without honest investigation of "extraordinary" results leads to a Double Bind (Bateson, ) that creates loss of hope and depression. No more Double Binds !

Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2012 2:41 pm

Do charge differences affect orbit of planets and comets?

Unread post by michaelclarage » Tue Mar 27, 2012 6:19 am

If a comet is charged relative to the Sun, should that charge difference not affect the orbit? Has anyone looked at orbits of planets or comets, to see if electrostatic forces are modifying the orbits away from simple mass-mass gravity interactions?

Posts: 1111
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: Do charge differences affect orbit of planets and comets

Unread post by moses » Tue Mar 27, 2012 11:46 pm

Comets, like planets have double layers around them where there is a sizeable electric potential drop, so that the electrical forces act there at the double layer and not at the comet or the planet. However it is perhaps possible for the force to be tranferred to the comet or planet by the double layer needing to be a certain distance from the comet or planet.
Regardless, we are considering charged particles in a double layer and so electrostatics does not apply and probably never applies in a plasma.

Posts: 2815
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: Solar System and Planet Formation

Unread post by seasmith » Wed Jul 04, 2012 1:06 pm

Editor's summary
Planets under construction
Startling events around a nearby star are providing astronomers with a window on what may be the early stages of rocky planet formation. The young Sun-like star, known as TYC 8241 2652 1, has undergone a drastic 30-fold dimming during just a few years. In that period it appears to have gone from hosting substantial quantities of post-collisional ejecta in a region analogous to that hosting the orbits of the rocky planets in our Solar System, to retaining, at most, a meager amount of cooler dust. Such a rapid disappearance of a dusty debris disk has never before been reported. No currently available physical model satisfactorily explains the observations, but this star system has clearly undergone a drastic event while at the 'planet forming' stage of its evolution. ... E-20120705

As had the evolving magnetosphere

User avatar
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2012 6:12 am
Location: Norway

Solving the mystery of creation, Stars, planets and moons

Unread post by Enos » Thu Jan 31, 2013 4:40 am

Current standard theory of star and planet formation goes like this: Gravity pulls in a ball of dust, gas and plasma, which will spin and form into a disk. In the center of the disk the compression gets so high that the temperature rise to millions of degrees and ignite a fusion reaction, and a star is born. From the leftovers of the disk the planets clump together by gravity forces. The asteroid belt located between Mars and Jupiter, is leftovers from the protoplanetary disk.

My research suggests that our current standard theory of star and planet formation is incorrect. I will also show that there might be a more gradually and natural growth of both stars and planets.

The asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter is the strongest proof of the current standard theory. But there is an alternative view on how the asteroid belt came into existence. It is the exploding planet hypothesis by Tom Van Flandern. A planet located between Mars and Jupiter exploded and the asteroid belt is the debris. Iron meteorites are magnetic, and contain about 10% nickel, just as a planet core, the iron meteorites may then be pieces of the core of the exploding planet. The strongest argument against the exploding planet hypothesis is that there are not enough mass in the asteroid belt to count for a whole planet. If we add irregular moons and dwarf planets with strange orbits and without magnetic fields, we have more than enough mass to count for a planet. Debris from the explosion would also bombard the Sun, Jupiter and Mars, and to some degree Earth.

A huge asteroid hit Mars, or passed very close to Mars and disrupted the electric and the magnetic field. The atmosphere of Mars where blown away, and without any atmospheric pressure, the water will boil away. Oh those poor Martian’s! ;-) There are strong evidence of water present at Mars in the past, like gypsum (that can only be formed in water), ravines and ice. Mars also have a weak magnetic field, which imply it had a stronger magnetic field in the past, but this has probably diminished when the loss of the atmosphere disrupted the planetary current circuit. I don’t exactly know when this happened, but it’s probably many millions of years ago, and it may also be linked to a mass extinction on Earth. Here are some wise words from the founder of the exploding planet hypothesis, Tom Van Flandern:

As science progresses we will eventually unravel the mystery of our origins, and the solution will come sooner if our minds are prepared to accept the truth when it is found, however fantastic it may be. If we are guided by our reason and our scientific method, if we let the Universe describe its wonder to us, rather than telling it how it ought to be, then we will soon come to the answers we seek, perhaps even within our own lifetimes.[26]

Jupiter has been referred to as a failed star, but it might not be failing. Jupiter radiates at least 2,5 times the energy it receives from the sun, and it has a magnetic field which is almost 20 000 times stronger than Earth’s magnetic field, it has huge storms and fast rotation. Jupiter has massive intense radiation belts and large plasma fountains which creates something similar to solar wind. We have also found an electric current circuit down Jupiter’s magnetotail, and I find it probable that the whole magnetosphere act as a electromagnetic turbine driven by solar wind, and maybe even some accelerator based fusion reactions.


There are also electric circuits that connect the Galilean moons Io, Europa and Ganymede to Jupiter, Callisto is located outside Jupiter’s strong outer Van Allen belt and no connection is found. The moon Io has gotten most attention, because it’s said that it has large volcanoes spewing out ionized sulfur into space, the sulfur get neutralized and creates an equatorial plasma torus where Io’s orbit is located. The plasma torus co-rotates with Jupiter and Jupiter’s magnetosphere with a speed of 74 km/s. The electrons created by ionization of sulfur travel parallel to magnetic flux lines and create a bright spot in both of the Auroras on Jupiter.

Well I don’t quite buy this solution; volcanoes causing strong sustained currents in space seem to be a bit too fantastic to me, and Europa and Ganymede makes aurora footprints without volcanic activity, so there must be another solution.

I think the moon is a part of a current circuit which is connected to Jupiter, and if an electric current with ions and electrons pass through a Galilean moon or planet, the ions can’t easily travel through matter and will be accumulated, which result in increased mass of the moon/planet. Three out of four of the Galileans moons leave electron footprints in the aurora of Jupiter, which means electrons flow from the moons to Jupiter along magnetic fields. If this current shall flow parts of Io, Europa and Ganymede have to be more negatively charged than Jupiter’s auroras.

Jupiter is larger than all other planets in the solar system combined, but this doesn’t prevent it to be the planet which spins fastest, with a rotation period of only 10 hours. I find it probable that Jupiter and the three closest Galilean moons are acting similar as statorless unipolar Faraday generators:


If we imagine that the disk is Jupiter with its rotating magnetic field, the negative brush is Io, the wire is the magnetic “flux lines” going to both auroras, and the load is the resistance in the atmosphere of Jupiter. With this setup, Io will get negatively charged with electrons and become something similar to a cathode. It will then pull on ions in the auroras of Jupiter, and plasma from the plasma torus. The plasma torus can further pull in plasma and ions from Jupiter’s ionosphere along all connected flux lines, and we also get contributions from Jupiters plasma fountains and plasmasphere.


The ring current in the plasma torus will get a negative charge from Io and can pull in ions and plasma. The plasma will again get pulled towards Io where it will recombine into more neutral charged atoms, while emitting light. The observed light from more than 400 vulcanoes, could rather be emitted by an electrical phenomena. The moon itself could also act as a fusor pulling on ions, what impact speed will we get when we accelerate 74km/s ions from the plasmatorus towards Io? Which role the magnetic field of the moon play is another question.


All Galilean moons orbit’s Jupiter in the same direction as Jupiter spin, as all planets orbit the Sun in the direction the Sun spin. The statorless unipolar generator model might explain the direction of orbit and spin of galaxies, stars, planets and moons. And the orbits and spin of these are almost always in the same direction. We might also find some mathematical relations between orbit periods, orbit radius, spin period, kinetic energy, currents and magnetic fields. Like the orbiting period relation/resonance 1:2:4 of Jupiter's moons Io, Europa and Ganymede. Currents and magnetism seem to play a vital role in the creation of heavenly bodies. It seems like we even could engineer a space station orbiting Earth, which could collect its own mass and harvest an abundant supply of power from this power circuit, used for production or beamed down to Earth, it’s just to make a magnetic seed and watch the artificial moon grow. If we put it in the Li-5 the fifth Lagrange point, where the pull from the moon and the Earth is equal, it could even partly couple to the Sun’s even stronger power circuit. And also pick up charge differences just as our moon does. This could solve our energy problem and accelerate our space age. I vote yes!

What is the definition of a star? Does it have fusion in its atmosphere? Can it create planets? If one of the answers is yes I find it probable that Jupiter is a star. Exactly how the accelerator based fusion reactions happens I would like to discuss with you further in another post.

So if Jupiter is a star, then I wonder, can planets be star seeds? Is this how the universal three grows?

I find this utterly fascinating!

This is a work hypothesis, please join so we can settle the solution.

Posts: 166
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 7:14 am

Re: Solving the mystery of creation, Stars, planets and moon

Unread post by pavlink » Thu Jan 31, 2013 7:06 am

What is the definition of a star?
proposal: Star is a grown up planet with a partner.

When ready the planets are leaving their parent system to look for a partner.
"Lone planet found ‘free-floating’ through space" ( )
Lone planets in archive photos:

The stars form a pair with a partner to extract energy from the field.
Proxima Centauri
Barnard Star
Gliese 581
Ross 248
Tau Ceti
Gliese 163
Gliese 370
Gliese 667
propagation of life
Gliese 65
Wolf 359

Now they have a family of their own and nurture the next star generation.

Where our double star is located.
What is the electrical model of the interaction between the stars.
How long is the "Great Cycle"
What are precursors to completing a "great Cycle" revolution.
What to expect during and after the transition ( Golden Age ).
Connection to myths and religion.
And more.

The introduction is located here:
"We live in a double star system" ... 10&t=10104
We live in a double star system.
We need to study double star systems.

Solar System as 4D energy vortex

Blue Progressive
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 8:23 pm
Location: Canada

Planetary Formation

Unread post by Blue Progressive » Fri Aug 02, 2013 2:28 am

Planetary formation in the EU doesn't seem to be much elaborated. Liquid giants are ejected fully formed from the sun by electrical expulsion (basically similar to Jacot and Van Flandern) and the rocky planets are ejected from the liquid giants, but there is no mention of twinning. Are the planets ejected as twins or singly? Apparerntly singly, but if so, the only model that accounts for the twinniing is Van Flandern's. Also, it is probably implausible to suggest Earth as a moon (or planet) of Saturn as calculations allow for the largest moon to be Mars-size. As well, how could it be that Earth drifted away to become a planet in the inner solar system?
Ceux qui ne se rétractent jamais s'aiment plus que la vérité.--Joseph Joubert

User avatar
Posts: 1255
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Planetary Formation

Unread post by D_Archer » Fri Aug 02, 2013 5:16 am

Saturn was bigger in the past (as a sun).

- Shoot Forth Thunder -

Blue Progressive
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 8:23 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Planetary Formation

Unread post by Blue Progressive » Fri Aug 02, 2013 5:52 pm

But there's no explanation of how Saturn shrunk to its present size.
Ceux qui ne se rétractent jamais s'aiment plus que la vérité.--Joseph Joubert

Blue Progressive
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 8:23 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Planetary Formation

Unread post by Blue Progressive » Fri Aug 09, 2013 2:59 am

Probably my only modification to th e Flandernian model is that LHB-A and -B were flung from th e solar system in a period of instability, a period posited by both mainstream and EU models. This makes the model more plausible since th e only planets that explode d (4 of them, each correspopnding to the planetoid belts) would be small enough (and would be unstable) to blow up thru nuclear fission core collapse triggered by electrical discharges from the sun. Also, it is difficult to see how the LHBs would be caused by explosions of fluid planets as they would leave no debris.
Ceux qui ne se rétractent jamais s'aiment plus que la vérité.--Joseph Joubert


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests