|
| |
Evolution Encyclopedia Vol. 1 CHAPTER THREETHE ORIGIN OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM
Contents BASIC ARRANGEMENT OF THIS CHAPTER Introduction - Seven theories of solar system evolution, and why they are wrong 1 - Nebular hypothesis 2 - Fission theory 3 - Capture theory 4 - Accretion theory 5 - Planetary collision theory 6 - Stellar collision theory 7 - Gas cloud theory Seven additional flaws in the theories Facts about the planets and moon which disprove the theory 1 - Various factors 2 - Facts about Saturn 3 - Facts about our moon Conclusion
Where did our own Solar System come from? Is our sun just an accident? Are the precisely balanced orbits of its moons and planets merely the result of random explosions and outer space traffic jams? Is it all the result of haphazard chance? —a jumbled series of gigantic accidents?
There have been two main views regarding the origin of the planets in our solar system. The first is that another star happened to pass near our sun, and drew off clouds of gases which then formed themselves into planets. This is the planetesimal group of theories. Astronomers are well aware of the fact that stars do not wander around through space, but that is how the theory went.. The other main viewpoint is that a swirling cloud of gas formed itself into our sun, planets, moons, comets, and asteroids. By 1940, all the various encounter or planetesimal theories had pretty much been discarded as hopeless, but, beginning in that decade, under the urging of *von Weizsacker, *Whipple, *Spitzer, *Urey, *Garnow, *Hoyle, *Kuiper, and others, an attempt has been made to bring astronomers back to some variation of the nebular (gas cloud) hypothesis. Their efforts have been surprisingly successful, in spite of the obvious physical principle that gas in outer space (as well as here on earth) never coagulates; it always spreads outward. Let us consider some of the major reasons the various theories of the origin of our solar system are more foolishness than fact.
DISPROVING THE SEVEN THEORIES—The planets in our solar system are thought to have evolved into existence in one of seven ways: (1) NEBULAR HYPOTHESIS—For many years the nebular hypothesis was a leading theory. According to it, the sun and its planets supposedly condensed out of swirling eddies of cold, dark, interstellar clouds of gas and dust.
[1] Before any condensation of gas and dust could occur, the nebula would have diffused into outer space. According to *Gerald P. Kuiper, a leading evolutionary astronomer, before gravitational attraction would become significant, the particles would have to be as big as the moon. [2] The theory requires that a complex system of roller-bearing eddies of gas and dust had to develop, which in turn gradually whirled out into sun and planets and moons. But this is an impossibility, since such vortices would have to remain perfectly intact during essentially the entire period of planetary formation. On this point, Kuiper doubted that the vortices could last long enough to get the condensation building process of the planets underway. [3] What stopped the entire process? If it were not stopped, the entire mass of material would form one large body—without any planets and moons. [4] Since the sun has 99.5 percent of the mass in the solar system, and all the planets and moons only have 0.5 percent of it, what would have kept these small bodies from falling into the main body? [5] There is much interstellar material in the vicinity of our sun, but it is not condensing. [6] Our sun has an extremely small rotational motion—that is, it is turning slowly. This "angular momentum" is far too small to have evolved from a gas cloud. If our sun came from a gaseous protogalaxy, its angular momentum would have to have been a billion times as much as it is now, in order for our planets to be flung out and orbit it as fast as they do. How could it have lost all of its rotational motion?
(2) FISSION THEORY—The "fission theory" says that our sun burst one day, and all our planets came from it. Then the moons shot out from each planet, stopped, turned sideways and began circling the planets they came out of. Our moon is said to have emerged from an explosion in the Pacific Ocean.
[1] While the moon was moving outward from the earth, gravity would have pulverized it into rings. [2] Moon rocks are somewhat different in composition than the material on earth. [3] Immense outward explosions would hurl material straight out into space; they would not circle and then form carefully balanced orbits. [4] If thrown off by the earth, the moon should circle our world over the equator, but, instead of this, it orbits our planet at a tilt of 18-28° to the earth's equator. (3) CAPTURE THEORY—The "capture theory" says that our planets and moons were wandering around in space and the planets were captured by the gravity of our sun, and the moons were captured by the planets.
[1] The mathematical probabilities are extremely low. Given the great distances between objects in space, the likelihood that objects would pass so close to one another is very little. Millions would have to pass near the sun or planets in order for one to pass closely enough. [2] We see no planets flying by us today! If it was occurring earlier, it should be happening with great regularity now. We have enough telescopes in place that we could easily observe such giant rocks whizzing through our solar system. They would be brilliant as they shot by, and many could easily be seen with the unaided eye. [3] If they did pass near enough, gravity would crash into planets and suns, or they would merely fly past us; they would not pause and begin orbiting within our solar system. How could the earth, for example, capture the moon? It wouldn't. The moon would just rush on by it. When our "space-probes"—such as the Voyager rockets—are sent to other planets, as they pass close to them they are thrown outward and accelerated in their onward flight out into distant space. You may ask, "Why then does an Apollo rocket, after being hurled toward the moon, begin orbiting it?" Because closely-monitored computerized jets, controlled by telemetry signals from earth, place it into a carefully predetermined orbit at a certain distance from the moon's surface. Nothing is left to chance, for scientists know that only failure would result. [4] By mathematical probabilities, it would take thousands of moons passing near the earth in order for one to possibly begin circling it. In the process, gravity would have brought many of them crashing into the earth, destroying both! These solar system evolution theories appear to be little more than fables packaged in big words. (4) ACCRETION THEORY—The "accretion, condensation, nebular contraction," or "dust cloud" theory says that small chunks of material separately formed themselves into our earth and the moon.
It is said that the moon is just a pile of dust, and "just happened" to wander near and begin circling our world, another "pile of dust." But two huge spheres—earth and moon—so close to each other, would fly apart or, being so close to each other, would soon crash. They would not endlessly circle one another, neither colliding nor separating. (5) PLANETARY COLLISION THEORY—The "collision theory" of the origin our moon theorizes that our world is said to have collided with a small planet. The resulting explosion threw off rocks which formed our orbiting moon. Again there are problems: [1] Such a giant impact would totally destroy our planet or melt its crust. [2] The mathematical probabilities of another large object hurtling near our planet—and then striking it are remotely "possible." But the fantastically slight probabilities that it could hit our planet with just the right weight, speed, and angle of hit to produce an orbiting of the moon around our earth, make the whole process an impossibility. [3] But more: This would have had to happen repeatedly—again and again—for all the other moons in our solar system! (At the present time 60 moons in our solar system have been counted; the 1989 Neptune flyby added 6 more to the total.) [4] With 60 moons to form, tens of thousands of moons would have to pass by our nine planets In order for their five dozen moons to begin orbiting them! In the process, thousands of collisions would have occurred, destroying everything! [5] If so many near collisions of giant spheres are necessary in order for moons to form, why are not such near collisions regularly occurring today? Why are not moons regularly passing us now? In order to agree with the probabilities (mathematical likelihood) that it could occur, several dozen moons would have to fly through our solar system every day now—and for billions of years beforehand—in order for 60 moons to accidentally start circling our nine planets through close fly-bys. Of course, that many wandering spheres entering our solar system would cause havoc—and the resulting collisions would smash both planets and moons and hurtle the pieces into the sun. The truth is that the inventors of these harebrained schemes do not consider the involvement and consequences of their theories before propounding them. Compounding the problem, the public thinks that doctoral graduates must be very wise. They may be fine people, but no one lives long enough to become very smart. Forty-five years of active adulthood is hardly enough time for a man to learn enough—to even begin to recognize that he is actually quite ignorant. Picture from page 82
[1] A collision hurls materials outward. The debris would continually travel outward forever. [2] If any pieces were drawn together by gravity, they would have smashed into each other; they would not mutually orbit. (7) GAS CLOUD THEORY—The "gas cloud theory" of our planets and moons teaches that gas clouds were captured by our sun, which then mysteriously formed themselves at a distance into planets and moons.
[1] We have already observed that gas does not lump together, any more than air clumps together into solids. [2] If these planets and moons did adhere in that manner, they would not orbit one another, nor would they all together circle the sun. According to the theory, gas formed into dust grains, and these glued together somehow and built up into fist-sized chunks. These pieces continued to grow until they became planets and moons. But, as mentioned in the previous chapter, *Harwit calculated that it would be impossible for the gas and dust to stick together in outer space, and before any condensation of gas and dust could occur, it all would separate.
2 - SEVEN MORE FLAWS SEVEN MORE FLAWS IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM THEORIES—There are several other weaknesses in these theories of the origin of our solar system. Here are some of them: (1) They do not explain where stars, planets and moons originated. (2) They assume that the very precise and complicated orbits in our solar system came about by chance. Yet that could never happen. Man-made satellites eventually fall back to earth. All the moons should fall into their respective planets, and the planets should also fall into the sun.. Yet that could never happen. Man-made satellites eventually fall back to earth. All the moons should fall into their respective planets, and the planets should also fall into the sun. (3) To the extent to which we have studied them, each planet and moon in our solar system has unique structures and properties. How could each one be different if all of them came from the sun or a common stellar collision? How could each one be different if all of them came from the sun or a common stellar collision? How could each one be different if all of them came from the sun or a common stellar collision?(4) None of these theories fit into the laws of physics, as we know them. (5) Nowhere in the universe is to be found evidence of a building process, such as is depicted in these fanciful theories (4) None of these theories fit into the laws of physics, as we know them. (5) Nowhere in the universe is to be found evidence of a building process, such as is depicted in these fanciful theories (4) None of these theories fit into the laws of physics, as we know them. (5) Nowhere in the universe is to be found evidence of a building process, such as is depicted in these fanciful theories. Within the time span of mankind no such evolutionary changes as those taught by astronomical theorists has occurred. How can we assume they take place! This imaginative thinking is not science, but fiction writing. (6) Evolutionary theorists cannot come up with a rational explanation of the intricate balancings and orbital motions of moons and planets in our solar system! As mentioned earlier, Everything should crash together or fly apart. *Sir Harold Jeffreys, one of the world's leading geophysicists, after carefully examining the evidence for each of the various theories of how our solar system evolved into existence, summarized the situation in this way:
Since Jeffreys made that analysis, * NASA has poured millions upon millions of dollars into a gigantic effort to find evidence on the moon and other planets for evolution. But, to date, all the evidence discovered has been in favor of creation, not evolution. In one admissive statement, NASA said this about the theories and the evidence:
(There is a keen excitement to spend billions of dollars on a journey to Mars. The money could be better spent developing ways to desalinate seawater, design low-cost solar heating cells for heating and electricity, improve crop yield, or any number of other things that would help people down here. A primary objective of the trip is to try to find life on that ruddy planet. It has been hoped that this would provide evidence elsewhere of biologic evolution, since there is none on our own planet!
(See appendix to chapter 9 [Primitive Environment] for a list of 15 multi-million-dollar space satellite research projects for the purpose of finding life in outer space.) (7) Hydrogen gas never "gravitates" into solids—anywhere, either on the earth or in outer space. Scientists now know that neither gas nor dust particles can push themselves into small or large solids. There is no known mechanism by which small particles of gas could stick together to build up chunks big enough, which would finally attract each other gravitationally, and form planets. There is no known mechanism by which dust particles in outer space could do it either.
SEVEN FACTS ABOUT PLANETS AND MOONS—Here are additional facts that do not fit into any evolutionary theory of how our solar system came into existence: (1) A full 99.5 percent of all the angular momentum in the solar system is concentrated in the planets, yet a staggering 99.8 percent of all the mass in our solar system is located in our sun! To an astrophysicist this is both astounding and unexplainable. There is no known mechanical process which could accomplish this transfer of momentum from the sun to its planets. Our sun is rotating far too slowly to have been formed from a gas cloud that was rotating at high speed. To say it another way: the planets have far too much angular momentum in comparison with the sun. They are moving fast around the sun, while the sun itself is turning very slowly. (But that is understandable: the One who planned it all arranged for the planets to rapidly revolve so they would not hurtle into the sun, whereas the sun would need to turn slowly so it would not tear itself to pieces and fling the pieces outward into space.) Jupiter itself has 60 percent of the planetary angular motion. Evolutionary theory cannot account for this. This strange distribution was the primary cause of the downfall of the nebular hypothesis. To satisfy the theory, the sun would originally have had to spin at an extremely high speed. But instead, it rotates slowly. *David Layzer, a Harvard University astronomer, could find no solution to the angular momentum problem. If our sun had been part of a gaseous protogalaxy, its angular momentum would have to be a billion times as much as it now possesses. How it could have lost all but one ten-millionth of one percent of its theorized original angular momentum has never been explained. In addition, * Layzer explains, if the sun lost nearly all of its momentum, why did the planets and moons retain so much of theirs?
There is no possible means by which the angular momentum from the sun could be transferred to the planets. Yet this is what would have to be done if any of the evolutionary theories of solar system origin are to be accepted. Since our sun contains 99-6/7 percent of all the mass in the solar system, why was not one large mass of material formed, Instead of our giant sun and its small planets? Why did not the remaining 1/7 of one percent just fall into the sun? Scientists cannot account for this puzzling situation: less than one percent of the mass of the solar system is in the planets, while a staggering 98 percent of its angular momentum is in the sun. It simply does not fit into any of the cosmologies. Speaking of the mass-angular momentum problem, *Bergamini says:
(2) The orbits of Mercury, Pluto, asteroids, and comets each have an extreme inclination from the plane of the sun's ecliptic. (3) Both Uranus and Venus rotate backwards to that of all the other planets. Seven of the nine planets rotate directly forward, in relation to their orbit around the sun. Why then does Venus rotate slowly backwards, and Uranus rotate at a 98° degree angle from its orbital plane, even though its orbit inclines less than that of any other planet? Uranus is literally rolling along!
(4) One-third of the 60 moons in our solar system have retrograde (backward) orbits, which are the opposite of the rotational direction of their respective planets. Theories of cosmology cannot explain backwards-orbiting moons. (5) Consider Triton, the inner of Neptune's moons, which, with a diameter of 3,000 miles, is nearly twice the mass of our moon, yet it revolves backwards every six days, has a nearly circular orbit,—and is only 220,000 miles [354,046 km] from its planet! It should fall into the planet any day now, but it does not do so. *Isaac Asimov has tried to explain it with a theory that it "was thrown away from that planet by some cosmic collision or other accident" and, at a later time, flew back and was recaptured "by a similar accident"! (*Isaac Asimov, Intelligent Man's Guide to Science (1960), Vol. 1, p. 78.) The same explanation is used for all the other backward-orbiting moons. Evolutionists try to explain everything in the universe as nothing more than a series of fortunate accidents. If that is the explanation for Triton's retrograde motion, how about the other one-third of the moons in our solar system which rotate the same way? How many such "accidents" may the evolutionists be permitted to invoke to prop up theories already tottering under the weight of their own unproved assumptions? (6) There are such striking differences between planets and planets, planets and moons, moons and moons,—that the experts can produce no explanation that can explain them. If they all came from the same gas clouds, they should all be alike! But some are relatively smooth, others extremely mountainous, still others have volcanoes, and yet others are covered with a variety of peculiar chemical atmospheres. (7) The ratio of elements in the earth is far too different from those found in the sun, and the same holds true for the other planets in comparison with the sun. How then could the earth and other planets be torn out of the sun (planetesimal theory) or come from the same gas cloud that produced the sun (nebular hypothesis)? Listen to *Fred Hoyle of Cambridge:
FACTS ABOUT SATURN INTERESTING FACTS ABOUT SATURN—The rings of Saturn are primarily composed of solid ammonia, along with pebbles of various sizes. Scientists are trying to figure out how such a delicate substance such as ammonia, which should rather quickly vaporize off into space, could be formed into these equally delicate rings. How could those rings—and Saturn inside them—have been accidentally formed from gas, collisions, or some other such chance occurrence? And then there are its 17 moons which never collide with the rings. The farthest out is Phoebe, which revolves in a motion opposite to Saturn and its rings. How could that happen?
To add to the puzzle, in recent years it has been discovered that there are other planets in our solar system which have even more fragile ring systems. THE HYPOTHESES HAVE FAILED—After carefully studying all the modern theories of the origin of our earth and solar system, *Sir Harold Spencer Jones of the Royal Greenwich Observatory in England, wrote this conclusion to the whole matter:
5 - FACTS ABOUT OUR MOON
(1) All of the new information coming in about its nature and structure, reveals that the moon is very different from the earth.
The moon and earth have different structures and therefore different origins! From evidence that NASA has so far been able to obtain, the same situation exists in regard to the other planets and moons in our solar system! (2) The present situation in which our earth and moon orbit one another is simply too astounding an arrangement to be accidental. It could neither be originated nor maintained by random operations. Our moon is larger in relation to the planet it orbits, than is any other moon in our solar system. Go out at night and look at it. To have such a huge body circling so close to us—without falling into the earth—is simply astounding. For its size, it is very, very close to earth. Scientists cannot keep their satellites orbiting the earth without occasional adjustments. Lacking those periodic adjustments, the orbits gradually "decay," and the satellites eventually fall and crash. *Isaac Asimov, the foremost evolutionary science writer of our day, describes the precision of this relationship. In the following statement, think for a moment about that word, "balances."
(3) In addition, new discoveries made about the moon reveal that it is quite young—only a few thousand years old. A very young moon would not fit into any of the evolutionary theories of the origin of our solar system. There simply is not enough time for the various theories, with their collisions and near-collisions, to take effect. (Additional information on the age of the moon will be found near the beginning of chapter 6, Age of the Earth. Scientific evidence also indicates that the earth itself is quite young. For example, the principle of lunar recession, discussed in chapter 6, is a powerful evidence for both a very young earth and a very young moon.) CONCLUSION— No matter how deep men may go in their study of the universe, they will, if they seek truth, always arrive at the same conclusion.
Sir Isaac Newton is generally recognized as one of the two greatest scientists of the past 500 years. He clearly saw the implications of celestial mechanics and the intricately designed wonders in the sky.
You have just completed
THE ORIGIN OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM
|
(6) STELLAR COLLISION THEORY—The "collision
theory" of the origin of our entire solar system suggests that our planets, moons,
and sun all spun off from a collision between stars. As with most of the other theories,
the problems here are:
