Evidence that the Sun Captured the Saturn System?

[Lloyd]

* Mel Acheson said in today's TPOD, Stars in Collision Part 1 - Oct 30, 2009 at http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/arch ... lision.htm, that:

Astronomers have recently discovered a band of energetic neutral atoms around the sky. This discovery supports the hypothesis that the Sun captured a previously independent Saturnian system, in which Saturn was the brown-dwarf primary for the planets Earth, Mars, and Venus.

* Can anyone explain how the discovery supports the capture hypothesis?

[jjohnson]

"Not me," said the Newbie.
-but maybe Sol fissioned under early-days' stress, and the lesser half (dwarf) was still over-stressed, so Earth, Mars, Venus. ? ? Why not Mercury too? I am not too sure of how the fissioning process proceeds, to be honest - haven't seen, say, a diagrammatic sequence of images or the like, or even an in-depth discussion of it longer than a paragraph or so. Stars to binaries get more column inches than star to planet(s). I'd like to see more along these ideas.

And the other gas giants? Knots in the early formation process that cooled separately but in the general EM domain surrounding the primary?

A little more help here, folks!

[Lloyd]

* Here's how Thornhill described planet formation: http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=rbkq9dj2.

- The physicist, Peter Warlow, made the colorful comment in 1982 that we assume that planets are formed outside stars “for the ‘obvious’ reason - that’s where we find them.” However, “We humans, equally ‘obviously,’ are outside our mothers - yet we did not start there!” It is far simpler and infinitely more efficient if planets are “born” at intervals by the electrical ejection of charged material from the similarly charged interiors of larger bodies – gas giants from stars, and rocky planets from gas giants. We have circumstantial evidence for such a proposal in the binary stars found after a nova outburst. Also most of the rocky bodies in the solar system closely orbit a gas giant. Electrical ejection in a massive internal lightning flash answers the question of the source of the energy. It is not dispersive like an explosion. The electromagnetic pinch effect will produce a jet of matter, rather like a coronal mass ejection, only on a much grander scale. The result is a proto-planet plus a stream of gases and meteoric debris.
- The electrical expulsion model solves the many riddles of meteorites. They are the afterbirth of a new planet, not a star. What is the origin of tiny melted spheres of silica, called chondrules, found in many meteorites? How were they flash-heated and just as suddenly cooled? How did radioactive isotopes with half-lives measured in hours and days become trapped in meteorites? A powerful cosmic electric discharge provides simple answers. Astrophysicists in the past have suggested lightning in the accretion disk as an explanation for chondrules, but without understanding what causes lightning the idea died. The May 17 issue of New Scientist reports a new idea from astrophysicist Frank Shu. He argues that meteorites were formed in “furious winds that blew red-hot rock out from the Sun at hundreds of kilometres per second.” Lightning creates just such “furious winds” of heated matter along the discharge channel. Shu’s explanation, on the other hand, suffers the usual lack of understanding of plasma electrical behavior and relies, once more, on magnetic fields to perform the necessary miracles.

[jjohnson]

I've read Wal's ideas, and of course they are good. I am not sure how he gets the statement that most of the rocky bodies in our solar system orbit a gas giant - is that numerically or by mass? There is Saturn's ring system which, numerically may contain more particles than any other orbital situation, but many of those may be exceedingly small, and many may simply be ices, not rocky fragments. There is the asteroid belt, which has a fairly high count of rocky bodies, and the proposed Oort cloud and Kuiper belt, but those bodies orbit the Sun, along with the 4 rocky inner planets, and I've never seen a count or what could be called an "accurate" census of their numbers. Yes the sun is a gas giant in general terms, although it is hot enough and massive enough to be a step up and I haven't seen stars called gas giants, themselves. Not to be argumentative; I'm just curious about the statement.

As I said, I'd like to see some more in-depth contributions on planetary formation phenomena in EU terms. I am still not clear if the intent is to imply that rocky, or highly "metallic" planets are birthed from a star or from gas giants. Is it a downhill string, wherein a new star under stress fissions into a binary pair or a star plus a large, in-close gas giant, which in turn ejects one or more smaller, rockier planets which cool and pick up whatever orbits are organized and stabilized by the combined forces of gravity and local electrodynamics? I can see I have more questions than answers - highly speculative at best. M'aidez, y'all!

[moses]

Stars in Collision Part 2: Mel:
"This discovery supports the hypothesis that the Sun captured a previously independent Saturnian system, in which Saturn was the brown-dwarf primary for the planets Earth, Mars, and Venus."

As far as I can tell the reason for this is that there is evidence that the Sun is in a z pinch, plus a whole lot of theory. The discovery does not go against the incoming Saturn theory, but it is too strong to say it supports the detailed theory. Personally I see Earth and Mars having very different origins.
Mo

[mharratsc]

As near as I can figure it, Mel explains in [url2=http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/arch ... ision2.htm]Stars in Collision Part 2[/url2]:

"Judging by the number of observed comet-like stars, such capture is not uncommon. It’s probably a safe assumption that a proportional number of stars in low-energy dark mode conditions are also captured. In other words, capture may be a frequent occurrence in an electric universe. This is to be contrasted with the case in a gravity universe, in which capture is virtually impossible:"

This seems to imply that stars in dark current mode are most likely the results of a 'capture event' where the introduction of a body carrying a differential electric charge balances out the original star that was in glow/arc mode (such as planetary nebulae).

Then further:

"If electrical capture is common, it lends credibility to such Saturnist models of the recent history of the Solar system as that described by Dwardu Cardona in his book God Star and its two sequels."

We have an if,then statement: If most stars shown to be in dark current mode are the products of capture events, then "it lends credibility" to the Saturnist model because that is the body that was theoretically captured by the Sun in the Saturnist theory (based upon the pan-geographic and mythological evidence accumulated by various folks).

I hope that made sense?


Mike H.