I developed a theory that explains how Comets, Planets, and Moons Originate and Evolve in the Solar System using Celestial Mechanics. It does not follow the more widely accepted Nebular & Planetesimal Hypotheses. In short Comets from outside our Solar System pass by the Sun and have their vector altered into a highly elliptical Orbit. This Orbit smooths out over millions of years into a nearly circular orbit that resides closer to the Sun than Mercury is now. Once the orbit begins to move outward from the Sun the Comet has become a Planet. Additional Comets that pass close to the Sun and have a large enough Mass continue the same process become additional Planets. The Planets grow sequentially away from the Sun. Mercury is the youngest, Pluto is the oldest. Comets with smaller masses interact with the Planets while they are in their orbits close to the Sun and become their Moons in a phase called Lunar accumulation. I think the Nebular & Planetesimal Hypotheses are wrong because: 1. The Planets are not all the same age, the age sequentially from Mercury to Pluto outward. 2. The Comets allow for Solar Binding which establishes the T=0 start point for Planetary Time. 3. The Planets and Moons are articulated and this requires Solar Binding. 4. The newly arriving Comets displace the existing Planets moving their vector away from the Sun.
The Nebular & Planetesimal Hypotheses place all the Planets in place at the same time with no binding, articulation, or age difference. They also cannot explain the origin or placement of Comets and Moons.
Top network posts
- 14PSCustomObject to Hashtable
- 9Is there a way to retrieve a PowerShell function name from within a function?
- 7Is it possible for a moon to orbit a planet floating free in the galaxy rather than orbiting a star
- 7Long term development of Comets
- 7Why does Pluto's Orbit underlap Neptune's Orbit
- 5Was comet ISON in a Kepler orbit prior to disintegrating?
- 5Do solar systems have to evolve in a galaxy?
- View more network posts →