Simulating the Solar System?

With the increasing capability of computers, the simulation of the formation of ‘solar systems’ is becoming more popular. However, because of the consensus nature of the community, these attempts are all based on the same assumptions, which are all incorrect.  They all begin with the assumed presence of the giant planets –  but for the wrong reason.  This stems from the misunderstanding that because the hydrogen does not ‘hang around’ more than one or two million years after the star forms, the ‘gas giants’ have to form very quickly.  No one knows how this could have happened, but the studies gloss over this point and concentrate more on the terrestrial planets like the Earth, Mars etc.

The terrestrial planet ‘accretion’ begins typically with a uniform layer of dust extending from Venus’ orbit out to Jupiter, which is incorrect.  A big assumption is then introduced to the effect that the dust in this layer somehow ‘sticks together’ into low mass bodies, which are the most that can be handled by the computer (surprise!). There is no explanation of how dust particles could stick together, because none has ever been found. The simulations then try to estimate whether these slightly larger chunks will collide and stick together or bounce off one another depending on whether they have direct or glancing collisions, but acknowledge that a oblique collision could cause a whole bunch of additional particles that the simulations cannot track. This process goes on and on to produce larger and larger bodies.

A second problem that is glossed over is Mercury.  No simulations can reproduce anything like it, so they usually just skip it, assuming a very low probability collision somehow knocked off the crust and mantle of a normal planet.  A third, more immanent concern is Mars, because we have learned that it had a good amount of water at some time in the past as well as a strong magnetic field from our many probes.  Simulations have trouble coming up with such a small terrestrial planet. Cyclic catastrophism explains both Mars and Mercury which were one planet until 687 BC

Another factor in some simulations is the amount of water in the inner solar system, specfically the Earth. Because the ‘community’ believe that Jupiter and Saturn, and Uranus and Nepture to a lesser degree, are hydrogen and helium, they assume that the only water in the outer solar system is in the form of the small moons of the outer planets and much farther out, in the putative Oort cloud and that water must be transported to the Earth by comets from the Oort cloud, but these are too small to be simulated.


1. There is no mechanism whereby dust particels in the inner solar system can begin to accrete (stick together). That is not how or where the terrestrial planets formed.

2. Scientists have gradually become aware in recent years that getting water to the Earth from its only apparent location, the outer solar system, is a problem.  It is a key point.  but one problem with this idea is that in the currently accepted standard model, there isn’t much water out there, – only small moons of the giant planets, so the simulatins assume there are a lot of icy bodies farther out in the putative Oort cloud, very few of which have even been observed. It is not clear what perturbs them to enter the inner solar system.  In some cases the eccentricities of Jupiter and Saturn are arbitrarily increased in order to do this.

3. Nucleogenesis demands,( and all the tables show), that oxygen and carbon are the 3rd and 4th most abundant elements in the solar system. If this is true, then there should be no water shortage. Amazingly, the only observation that corroborates this abundance is the earth itself and the compositions of the carbonaceous chondrite (CC) meteorites. Considering their total mass, they hardly prove a worthwhile source for the formation of the Earth. The only reason these are used is because the same elements are found in the absorption spectra of the Sun, This is imagined to show the composition of the Sun itself, thereby proving that these little chunks are the material from which the planets accreted.  In fact, this spectrum only shows the content of the Sun’s atmosphere, not its interior and is due to the recent influx of these little bodies ejected from Mars, when it was in the vicinity of the Earth between 3700 and 6987 BC. It does not indicate the composition of the Sun. The same misunderstanding leads to claims that our Sun ‘contains more carbon’ than almost any star we see throughout the Universe. Actually rocks as dense as the CC meteorites cannot form in a weightless environment because the gravity of a planet is required to compress them

4. Nucleagenesis alone shows the bankruptcy of the Gas Giant hypothesis.  Jupiter and Saturn combined account for 92 % of the mass of all the planets. So far, Galileo and Cassini have found essentially no water on either of these giants.  Because of their apparent temperature excesses, combined with the unproveable assumption that nothing unusual has happened in the last 4.5 billion years, Jupiter and Saturn cloud-top temperatures are extrapolated downward to estimated core temperatures of 25,000 K assuming they are gaseous. In spite of the Great Red Spot  and the multiple zonal wind bands, not a single planetary scientist or astrophysicist has suggested that there may have been a recent  impact on Jupiter,


1.  To satisfy the nucleogenesis problem in the solar system, the low average density of the giant planets, the continual presence of methane in their atmospheres, and provide a solid surface on which an impact could take place, the solution is quite obvious.  It is nothing very exotic, just a well-known form of water ice which forms in low temperture, high pressure environments in the presence of ample methane.  Its density is only around 0.7.  Structurally it comprises cells of 12 or more water molecules, each enclosing a methane molecule, or other foreign atoms or molecules.  This characteristic classifies it as a clathrate.  This structure of Jupiter and Saturn alone satisfies the nucleogenesis abundance requirement for the entire solar system, with the water in the MGH supplying oxygen and the methane supplying carbon.  But the average density of Jupiter is much higher than pure MGH, 1.33.  This implies that Jupiter incorporated almost all of the heavy elements in the nascent solar sytem at its inception.  And the well known characteristic of water ice, in the form of snowflakes provides the mechanism for acccretion to begin at the smallest scales.  The heavy elements were present at Jupiters radius in the form of dust particles, provoding  nucleation centers on which the ice crystals formed, as a result the heavy elements were automatically incorporated – a beautiful symbiotic relationship, worthy of the  greatest architect.

2.  Another beauty of this design is that when a large body, attracted by Jupiter’s strong gravity, impacts the giant, it greatly compresses the MGH at the site at the same instant raising the temperature to several hundred million degrees and because of the abundance of H and D (deuterium) triggers a monumental fusion explosion out of which is born a plasma cloud from which a terrestrial planet is formed.  The heavy elements in the plasma  quickly contract, forming the high density core  and mantle, as exemplified by proto-Venus today, while the much more abundant elements that will someday settle on the proto-planet and form its crust, oceans, atmosphere and biosphere as it cools, float invisibly in the inner solar system, and also secretly rain down on the unsuspecting existing planets, like the Earth.

This greatly simplifies the formation of the terresstrial planets. No complex chemistry is required because the plasma cloud from which they formed, Earth included, was an atomic soup, all previous molecules were destroyed and compounds in the planetary interior are concentrated based on their atomic weights and secondarily to their chemical procliviites.  There is no need to run hundreds of simulations with random parameters. This is the way our system was created all explained bya few simple myths.

1 Cor 1:27-29 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the …  mighty;  And base things of the world and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not to bring to nought things that are:  That no flesh should glory in his presence.



~ by Angiras on October 13, 2014.

%d bloggers like this: