Solar System and Planet Formation

[Blue Progressive]

I forgot to add that giant planets have been postulated to be ejected form the solar system based on computer simulations (Space.Com. 2011. Extra Giant Planet May Have Dwelled in Our Solar System).

msheakc also supports the EU-EPH model in the Electric Comets thread (last page).

[JeffreyW]

Planetary formation is star evolution itself.

Shocking I know.

So yea, Saturn is a star, it is shrinking because the ionized plasma is becoming gas. The gas then directly deposits as solid structure under higher pressures and temps. This is what forms land. (aka, the ground you walk on).

http://vixra.org/pdf/1303.0157vC.pdf

Stars are planets. They are the same thing only in different stages of metamorphosis.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1205.0107v8.pdf

[JeffreyW]

Stellar metamorphosis theory is like headphones. You can't hear them unless you put them in your ears. Just looking at them from 1000 feet away and proclaiming there's no sound is what the establishment "scientists" do.

[Spektralscavenger]

But there's no explanation of how Saturn shrunk to its present size.

Possibly Saturn went nova.

If we take myths seriously (although not literally) we have to ponder Earth being part of the system Saturn-Uranus-Neptune or Jupiter-Saturn-Uranus-Neptune until these were captured by the Sun. The Saturn nova could have been caused by interactions with Jupiter or the Sun.

[Sparky]

But there's no explanation of how Saturn shrunk to its present size.

It is a highly active electrical body. It is speculated that at some time the electrical charge of the planet caused it to fission, and what we see today is what is left of that.

[Spektralscavenger]

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2007/ ... neeggs.htm
If electricity can produce stone eggs and blueberries I don´t see why can´t produce planetary "stones" once in a while albeit I don´t expect that confirmed in the lab any time soon Maybe not so often z-pinches in dusty regions can make telluric planets and z-pinches in molecular clouds can make gaseous planets.


http://www.native-science.net/MilkyWay. ... oddess.htm
Some say the myths regard Milky Way events (g.e., core activity or glowing filaments), some say myths regard Solar System events. Personally, I am eclectic. Neither all the mythical events are planetary nor all Milky Way events. The separation of sky and Earth, times with no stars, Sun and Moon coming closer, ... obviously aren´t Milky Way events. Besides, to me is pretty clear that the sky stuff wasn´t worshipped just because "they are up there and shine" but because of their long arm; g.e., there are many legends about the megamonuments build up thanks to the gods rendering the rocks weightless and/or malleable_ I´d really like to test that in the lab. Nevertheless, ain´t no isolated systems and the galactic core is the most powerful star of the galaxy, a true "god" http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2010/arch ... 03fire.htm Suppose the ancients witnessed the birth of countless stars from the central plasmoid, they could have figured out all the stars of the sky did born the same way as well as if they witnessed the birth of planets or moons (Titan?) deduce Earth did born ergo http://holographicgalaxy.blogspot.com.e ... giant.html

Of course, this all in all means that the "bombardment era" is a myth. Earth (and Mars, and ...) was inhabitable by our type of life a couple million years after formation. What´s more, from an EU standpoint films like Armageddon are so much of a scientific blunder. Few meters rocks can reach surface but that at most causes Tunguska-like events, no planetary threat. Close passes of big ones can cause fires and other local catastrophes (justifying old "superstitions") but again, never a planetary threat. I don´t rule out the asteroids being the debris of some unfortunate giant planet or planets although, needless to say, the disintegration of an Earth-like planet seems much more likely.

http://blog.hasslberger.com/2007/12/sta ... irlpo.html What came first, the planet/star or the spin? I´d say, the spin!

[Native]

@Spektralscavenger, you wrote:

Some say the myths regard Milky Way events (g.e., core activity or glowing filaments), some say myths regard Solar System events. Personally, I am eclectic. Neither all the mythical events are planetary nor all Milky Way events.

And:

Suppose the ancients witnessed the birth of countless stars from the central plasmoid, they could have figured out all the stars of the sky did born the same way as well as if they witnessed the birth of planets or moons

AD § 1: If you are referring to celestial objects of any kinds in combination with ancient myths, you have to include all kind of celestial objects mentioned in the ancient Creation Myths.

AD § 2: No ancient human can possibly and naturally/historically have observed/witnessed the birth of planets or moons. The ancient stories of creation speaks of the general and elementary creation which takes place all over in the Universe, thus "in the beginning was nothing" which really just means "before anyting firm was created" = "a state where all elements are just what they are" before the creation sets off.

When set in motion, the baisc elements and their qualities creates everything else, thus forming the first entity of light (The Central Light) in the middle of our galaxy, which was the ancient known part of the observable universe. From the central light everything else in our galaxy is created, beginning with the first contours of the Milky Way galaxy and these contours holds the primary archetypical symbols of the creation.

The mythical Serpent lyes arong the entire Earth, symbolizing the MW-contours. The division of "Heaven and Earth" comes naturally by the division of the Earth´s two hemispheres where the northern and southern hemisphere MW-contours symbolizes the 2 main creator deities where The Great Goddess resides on the southern hemisphere (The Underworld) symbolizing the southern MW-contours and The Great God symbolizes the northern MW-contours (The Upperworld). The MW-center also holds the mythical terms of "Great Light"; "Primordial Mound"; "The Cosmic Womb" and the location of the "Cosmic Tree of Life".

- A part of the mythological telling of cosmos occurs from physical celestial observations - and the rest can only be fully understood when one accept the human possibility to experience cosmos via "the inner way" i.e. the spiritual way via meditation, dreams and visions where the Creation still speaks of itself and ourselves and how everything is created. Only in this way we human can know of anything from the past "once upon a time creation" of everything in our nearer cosmos.

[Spektralscavenger]

@Native
If you are referring to celestial objects of any kinds in combination with ancient myths, you have to include all kind of celestial objects mentioned in the ancient Creation Myths.

You have to include the Golden Age, the Silver Age, the Dream Time, Kali Yuga, etc as well. Mythology clearly implies a changing world, many times cyclical, sometimes "eras" taking over. Was the Milky Way any different, more active, in the last 20,000 years? Is the Golden Age or the Dream Time some galactic configuration?

No ancient human can possibly and naturally/historically have observed/witnessed the birth of planets or moons

The "birth" could simply mean invisible before, visible now. We haven´t created stars and galaxies with telescopes.

The ancient stories of creation speaks of the general and elementary creation which takes place all over in the Universe

Know what happens light years away or in subatomic scales is useless, know what happened (and may occur again) on Earth is useful. Especially if some catastrophe is hanging over your head. Only rich people can afford not be pragmatic

thus "in the beginning was nothing" which really just means "before anyting firm was created" = "a state where all elements are just what they are" before the creation sets off

Or in the beginning there was nothing in the sky, only the waters of chaos.

thus forming the first entity of light (The Central Light) in the middle of our galaxy

Or in the middle in the sky.

From the central light everything else in our galaxy is created, beginning with the first contours of the Milky Way galaxy and these contours holds the primary archetypical symbols of the creation

Many things are created in the galactic core but probably only high priests and occultist societies give a damn about it. Unless some galactic event placed Earth in danger, like Paul Laviolette theorizes.

The mythical Serpent lyes arong the entire Earth, symbolizing the MW-contours

Or plasma formations in the sky http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/ ... oboros.htm

A part of the mythological telling of cosmos occurs from physical celestial observations - and the rest can only be fully understood when one accept the human possibility to experience cosmos via "the inner way" i.e. the spiritual way via meditation, dreams and visions

That´s why some traditions speak of the Universe being billions or trillions years old, I guess. Again, unless living in a "Golden Age" spend time investigating what happened millions of years ago many light years away is not something that people can afford. At least meditate to improve survival abilities is a much better choice outside the garden of Eden.

[Spektralscavenger]

http://scitechdaily.com/astronomers-fin ... tary-disk/

Astronomers assume that the planet formation of our solar system began with collision and coalescence of huge amount of dust

Is the "protoplanetary" name earned? How did the distant disk form?

[Sparky]

Astronomers assume that the planet formation of our solar system began with collision and coalescence of huge amount of dust.

The link that you supplied showed and made reference to a "young" planet. Could be that the extra dust they see is a new star being assembled.

gotta have dust!!!

[Native]

@Spektralscavenger, you wrote:

The mythical Serpent lyes arong the entire Earth, symbolizing the MW-contours

Or plasma formations in the sky http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/ ... oboros.htm

AD: No, not in this case. The Milky Way band can be observed all around the Earth and it gives origin to the myth of the Great Serpent/Great Winged Serpent.

[Native]

http://scitechdaily.com/astronomers-fin ... tary-disk/

Astronomers assume that the planet formation of our solar system began with collision and coalescence of huge amount of dust

Is the "protoplanetary" name earned? How did the distant disk form?

AD: "Collision" and "coalescense" are gravity-only-terms where scientists assumes a formation system which is completely impossible and unexplainable in gravity-terms.

Just take "the galactic roation anomaly" where a huge formation takes place in the middle of our galaxy, creating the galactic disc shape where strong electromagnetic gamma rays speaks of the real formational electrodynamic/thermodynamic process. The scientist confuses electromagnetic galactic disc formations for "gravitational solar system discs", because this is what they have studied and "learned" on the universities.

This formative and cyclic motion is unexplainable by the Newtonian and Einsteinian ideas - still one can read lots of speculative nonsence which conventional "scientists" let out in arxiv-papers and all kinds of PC-simulations.

[Native]

New Discovery: Inner Regions of Milky Way's Disc Formed First

Link: http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/20 ... Galaxy+--G

My article comment:

A VERY REFRESHING AND CONFIRMING DISCOVERY!

Quote: "The research suggests that stars in the inner regions of the Galactic disc were the first to form, supporting ideas that our Galaxy grew from the inside-out"

AD: For some decades I ́ve been convinced that the formation in our galaxy really is a circuit of formation and our Solar System once was created right in the center of our galaxy and you can find many comments on this issue by googling "Ivar Nielsen+DailyGalaxy" and skim the 661 results.

- Spiral galaxies are not just galaxies. They can be categorized in 2 main types:

1. Galaxies with at very tight spindled arms and an overall inwards turning motion with a very luminous centre, suggesting a high velocity of a beginning star formation. (A young galaxy)

2: Galaxies with open spindled arms and a less luminous centre and 2 (4) bars telling of a slower velocity of formation and an overall outgoing motion via the bars. (A mature galaxy)

It is very obvious just by looking at the Milky Way structure and rotation that the formation takes place in the galactic center and that mini-galaxies; stars and planets are slung out from the center and out in the galactic arms.

It is impossible for the stars in the galactic arms to take a 90 degree abrupt turn from the arms and into the bars and further into the center if supposing an inwards going motion as assumed by the gravity ideas.

Here we now have the explanation of the "galactic rotation anomaly": The observed formation confirms the factual galactic rotation curve - and it contradicts a "heavy gravity mass" and a "black hole" in the galactic center. All stars are formed in the middle and have moved out in the galactic surroundings, all with a mutual speed, originated from the galactic center.

But the formation does not "begin from within" as stated in this article. We are talking of a cycle of formation where gas and matter in the first hand is assembled from the outer part when our galaxy was young and after a certain assembling, the formation "turns around" and goes outwards in a now "mature galaxy", thus showing a full cycle of galactic formation.

The galactic formation does not origin from the Milky Way "collisions" and "swallowing up" mini-galaxies and so on. The mini galaxies are also a Milky Way formation going from within and out in the galactic arms.

Regarding the gaseous and metallicity of starry and planetary compositions, this all depends of the overall and cyclical galactic composition and of the actual composition of the original assembling of gas and matter.

Read more here: "Typical Spiral Galaxies and Their Cyclic Formation" - http://vixra.org/abs/1311.0200

[Native]

NB:
My comment to the article seems to be administratively removed from the first linked site, but it can be read on the DailyGalaxy Facebook site here "New Discovery: Inner Regions of Milky Way's Disc Formed First" - https://www.facebook.com/pages/dailygal ... 1802629840

[nick c]

Native,
The "Electric Universe - Planetary Science" board is not the place for the presentation of your personal theory of solar system formation. Feel free to open a thread on the NIAMI board, if you wish, or mention your theory in a sentence or two and then post a link so those interested can investigate further.
Forum Rules and Guidelines

The Thunderbolts Forum is not a personal publishing house for your own theories or opinions. Please do not post large excerpts of information that is available on your own or another website. It is far more acceptable to post a link to such information.

If you have any questions or objections feel free to send a PM to myself or an administrator.
thanks,
Nick