Fritz
Archon
Gender: 
Posts: 1746
Reputation: 8.84
Rate Fritz
  
|
 |
THE ORIGIN OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM: Re-thought
« on: 2008-08-07 14:59:36 » |
 |
I bumped into an old U of T friend and he pointed me to his website and his theory about the solar system. I figured this would be a good forum to precipitate some dialogue and ideas for his ideas. The text is work in progress.
Cheers
Fritz
Source: THE ORIGIN OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM
Author: Selwyn Firth (Selwynfirth@.yahoo.com)
Date: In progress
This theory of The origin of the solar system is the only theory which can explain all the anomalies of the current accretion disk theory by refuting it completely and starting anew.
The accretion theory says that the sun was formed from a massive cloud of mostly hydrogen and helium which was made up of materials that had been ejected from one or more supernovas.
This cloud of gas and small particles condensed into a protostar with a surrounding disk of dense material and small solid particles.
Over time the disk material which had a great deal of angular momentum as well as entropy somehow started to collect into more massive objects the size of small rocks.
Eventually some of the small rocks then collided and stuck together and became boulder sizes.
The boulder sized objects then began in falling and collected into solid planets in the inner part of the solar system and the solid core material of the outer gas giants somehow were large enough to capture and retain vast quantities of hydrogen and helium
Somehow many of the planets are proposed to have captured their various moons.<snip>
The Theory
THE ORIGIN OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM
This theory of The origin of the solar system seeks to explain all the anomalies of the current accretion disk theory by refuting it completely and starting anew.
Problems to be explained
1 The accretion theory cannot explain the dense inner planets and the much larger but less dense " Gas Giants"
2 The surprisingly Fe , o, Si and Mg rich inner planets.
3 The over abundance of noble gases in the Gas Giants.
4 The moons and how they were " captured".
5 Where did the comets come from?
6 Why are there so many iron nickel rich meteorites and asteroids?
7 Why are there atmospheres on Venus , Earth and Triton?
8 Why are the planets orbiting in the same plane/
9 Where are all the extra solar planets originating from/
1-The accretion theory says that the sun was formed from a massive cloud of mostly hydrogen and helium which was made up of materials that had been ejected from one or more supernovas.
This cloud of gas and small particles condensed into a protostar with a surrounding disk of dense material and small solid particles.
Overtime the disk material which had a great deal of angular momentum as well as entropy somehow started to collect into more massive objects the size of small rocks.
Eventually some of the small rocks then collided and stuck together and became boulder sizes.
The boulder sized objects then began in falling and collected into solid planets in the inner part of the solar system and the solid core material of the outer gas giants somehow were large enough to capture and retain vast quantities of hydrogen and helium.
Jupiter's atmosphere consists of about 81 percent hydrogen and 18 percent helium. If Jupiter had been between fifty and a hundred times more massive, it might have evolved into a star rather than a planet. Our solar system could have been a binary star system, meaning that we would have two suns. Besides hydrogen and helium, small amounts of methane, ammonia, phosphorus, water vapor, and various hydrocarbons have been found in Jupiter's atmosphere. From the Jet Propulsion Laboratory Web site May 1 2006 http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/galileo/jupiter/atmos.html
Saturn's atmosphere consists of 96.3%
were in its atmosphere and can't seen. Saturn's atmosphere consists of 96.3% hydrogen and 3.25% helium, with traces of methane, ammonia, ethane, ethylene, and phosphine. Because Saturn is colder than Jupiter, the more colorful chemicals sink lower in its atmosphere and can't seen.
Saturn's atmosphere consists of molecular hydrogen (92.4 percent), helium (7.4 percent), methane (0.2 percent), and ammonia (0.02 percent). As on Jupiter, hydrogen and helium dominate—these most abundant elements never escaped from Saturn's atmosphere because of the planet's large mass and low temperature (see More Precisely 8-1). However, the fraction of helium on Saturn is far less than is observed on Jupiter (where, as we saw, helium accounts for nearly 14 percent of the atmosphere) or in the Sun. It is extremely unlikely that the processes that created the outer planets preferentially stripped Saturn of nearly half its helium or that the missing helium somehow escaped from the planet while the lighter hydrogen remained behind. Instead, astronomers believe that at some time in Saturn's past the heavier helium began to sink toward the center of the planet, reducing its abundance in the outer layers and leaving them relatively hydrogen-rich. We will return to the reasons for this differentiation and its consequences in a moment.
Figure 12.3 illustrates Saturn's atmospheric structure (compare with the corresponding diagram for Jupiter, Figure 11.6). In many respects, Saturn's atmosphere is quite similar to Jupiter's, except that the temperature is a little lower because of its greater distance from the Sun and because its clouds are somewhat thicker. Since Saturn, like Jupiter, lacks a solid surface, we take the top of the troposphere as our reference level and set it to 0 km. The top of the visible clouds lies about 50 km below this level. As on Jupiter, the clouds are arranged in three distinct layers, composed (in order of increasing depth) of ammonia, ammonium hydrosulfide, and water ice. Above the clouds lies a layer of haze formed by the action of sunlight on Saturn's upper atmosphere.
Copied from: Nasa's
Interestingly Jupiter has a composition very close to the sun's.
However Saturn which is much smaller and is much further away from the sun has somehow captured more of the very light gas hydrogen H2 which has a much higher speed than the twice as heavy Helium. One would expect that Saturn would have been able to capture more Helium than hydrogen as compared to Jupiter.
Other problems with the atmospheres of the gas giants is the amounts of noble gases, other than Helium , that they contain. The noble gases should have not been in the accretion disk nor should they have been captured in such relatively large amounts but they have been confirmed for Jupiter and are probable in the atmospheres of the other gas giants as well.
2-The composition of the inner planets are made up mostly of elements that are the so called " nucleosynthesis products of Supernovae" In a massive supernova explosion all the particles in the core are blown outward with the same kinetic energy.
This means that the lighter elements should move away from the explosion a much greater distance than the heavier elements. Sort of like a mass spectrograph on a much greeter scale.
Somehow the materials in our " Gas cloud" contained a proportionate mix of the nucleosynthesis fusion products one would expect to find in s supernova. yet there is no supernova remnant anywhere to be seen. Skeptics will say that over the past 4.5 by our space neighbour hood has changed and the remnant is long gone.
I will remind them that we are in a desolate spot in a spiral galaxy that is slowly increasing in size and we are as is the rest of the galaxy rotating in synchronous orbit about the galactic center. 4.5 billion years ago the whole galaxy was very much the same with all the stars in the galaxy rotating about the center as they do now only the whole galaxy was maybe 10 - 30 percent smaller
If our star and solar system originated from one or more supernovae then the remnants should be close by but they aren't.
3-The moons. There are a lot of moons in our solar system . Where did they come from? Do you believe that they all formed by accretion and then were somehow captured by their respective planets.
It would be virtually impossible for one moon to be captured let alone the dozens we know about.
Newtonian physics proves the impossibility of a large object being able to capture a slightly smaller one. The best that can be done is for the approaching object to be tugged by gravity into a slightly different direction than it originally had.
Yet scientist would have us believe that Jupiter was able to do this over 30 times. You have got to be kidding.
4-The comets where did they originate from. They are way beyond Pluto how did they get there? and how is it that they all orbit the sun? No one has a good answer to these questions however my theory does.
5-All of the above can be answered by my theory which requires that the sun produce elements heavier. that is higher atomic number than carbon.
Nucleosynthesis is accepted as a fact of supernovas. I propose that it is possible that stars as large and larger than the sun can and do follow the fusion process to it's ultimate limit. An extremely hot and dense plasma layered as in supernova cores with a nickel - iron center surrounded by a layer of sulphur and in-between S Ni elements, Surrounded by a si- s layer which is surrounded by an Oxygen lay surrounded by a carbon layer which is surrounded by a helium layer.
To the skeptics who will undoubtedly say that the sun is too small to have a high enough temperature to fuse to iron I would like to point out some facts.
1 The time it takes for non neutrino energy to escape from the core is 1 My + -
2 As the core collapses as one fusion species is depleted the core density increases and thus the insulating effect of the higher density core material retains heat and the temperature goes up as well as the release of gravitation potential energy as the core collapses to a smaller radius also heats the core.
These successive collapses and heating are sufficient to increase the core temperature to Billions of degrees thus allowing fusion of the more massive elements up to iron nickel.
Successive fusion steps occur. H to He He to C O Si S Fe Ni.
The energy required to keep the core plasma from collapsing is the same at each stage the core undergoes a shrinkage and heats up to a higher temperature which allows a higher fusion process to occur. The amount of energy released in the successive fusion stages is much less and the stages are completed in shorter time spans.
H to He takes about 8 B years. B eng =7.2 - 1.2 = 6 Mev / nuc
He to C o takes about 500 My to 1 B y. 7.8 - 7.2 = .6 Mev / Nuc Ratio .6 /6 X .9 X 6= = 720 M y
O to Si takes about 8.5 - 8.3 = .3 Mev / Nuc Ratio .3/ 6 X .9 X 8 B Y = 360 M y
Si to S takes about 1 Week 8.55- 8.5 = .05 Ratio .05 / 6 X .9 X 8 = 60 M yr
S to Fe Ni takes about 1 day. 8.56- 8.56 = .01 Ratio .01 /6 X .9 X8 = 13.3 M yrs
Collapse to Neutron Density and recoil Takes 1 minute.
Recoil to Red Giant takes several Hours. (if not days.)
When fusion stops at the nickel iron stage, there is no energy left to keep heating the plasma core which provides the counterbalancing pressure which kept the plasma from collapsing. The plasma then collapses.
As the core collapses several things happen .
The core plasma is very dense and massive and exerts a very strong gravitational attraction on all its components and spins much faster due to its angular momentum being exerted over a decreasing radius
The smaller the radius the stronger the gravitational effect.
Gravitational potential energy is released and converted to kinetic energy which is expressed as an increase in temperature.
The density of the collapsing core plasma reaches the density of neutrons and further nucleosynthesis occurs. This heavier nucleosynthesis is endo thermic and is made possible by the kinetic energy released from the core collapse.
As in a supernova the extremely rapidly spinning core recoils sending out a shockwave that causes the outer layers of the sun to expand into a low mass red giant. It becomes red due to it's lower temperature.
At the same time or a few microseconds later the rapidly spinning core plasma ( which now consists of various amounts of all possible elements) , breaks apart and large chunks of it move outward as coupled objects in a spiral fashion. The fragments undergo rapid expansion and cooling from the plasma state.
Many different chemical species for, phosphates, silicates carbonates, sulphides sulphates chlorides. There is an almost instantaneous solidification of the lighter chemical species which have remained above the much denser nickel iron core.
The centers of all the eight large planets and their various moons behaved in the same way.
The smaller fragments congealed into the inner four and all the moons. The four largest fragments became gas giants as their initial masses were large enough to exert sufficient gravity that they were able to capture and retain hydrogen and helium.
The gases giants could only capture the gases that were in their orbital proximity.
The original star expanded and became a red giant that filled the solar system that we know.
As in the original star the density varied from the center outward. This resulted in the inner most gas giant Jupiter orbited in a much denser cloud of hydrogen and helium. Next Saturn orbited in a less dense gas and Uranus and Neptune even less dense gas.
This is the only reasonable explanation of why there are four gas giants of different masses.
All the inner planets are too small to hold hydrogen and helium. and Mars can barely hold on to carbon dioxide mercury cannot hold much in the way of gases at all. Increases its density and temperature, spins very rapidly and becomes a very dense rapidly spinning plasma that eventually recoils and flies apart.
This has happened to countless sun like stars and we are now at last "seeing" a multitude of planets around relatively close sun like stars.
There is controversy over the possible internal temperature of the sun. The temperature is related to the amount of energy released by fusion in the core and the ability of that energy to escape from the central core. There is a fixed pressure at the core that is related to the mass and density of the sun. The heat loss is controlled by the ability of the energy to escape from the core by various mechanisms. It is generally agreed that the sun is getting hotter and thus it cannot be in thermal equilibrium and it’s very dense insulating gases near the core will allow the core to heat to temperatures that will allow the core mass ( approximately 5 percent of the sun’s mass) to complete the fusion process to form iron.
The following article describes a theoretical process which requires our sun to be at least 13 - 15 billion years old or about the same age as the universe. The earlier sun was probably some 10 – 25 percent more massive than the present sun and this would have allowed the central fusing core of the sun to convert itself from hydrogen to helium for the first 8 billion years or so and then as the core hydrogen ran out a gravitational collapse would have occurred converting the mostly helium core to carbon then successive gravitational collapses would have occurred to as the lighter elements were stepwise fused until finally the most stable element nickel 27 / iron 26 was formed. The stepwise fusions after the long hydrogen burn would have been much shorter as the total amounts of energy per step were proportionately less. The process would have been a smaller version of a supernova explosion due to the smaller mass of the original star. The mainly iron core then underwent a gravitational collapse until the core density approached that of neutrons since there was no source of energy to sustain the core pressure. To counterbalance the intense gravity. The release of the gravitational potential energy was sufficient to power the further endothermic nucleosynthesis processes for elements of greater atomic number than iron. The highly compressed core then recoiled as the extremely high density and gravitational energy released prevented further collapse. The core would have been spinning rapidly, approximately 56 times faster than the original core due to its angular momentum and as it collapsed it would have spun even faster until the recoil and centrifugal force caused it to break up into some very large globules and many smaller ones. They spiraled out of the core into the now extremely volumous and less dense nova and assumed their present orbits.
The dynamically coupled rapidly spinning extremely large and very dense globules would have spiraled outwards from the center and would have expanded and rapidly cooled as the pressure would have decreased to almost zero.
The newly formed planets eventually settled into orbits around the center and within the expanded sun. The planets and their moons consisting of mostly liquid iron cores and a surface of lighter elemental compounds such as silicates and phosphates. Due to the high temperatures water would have existed as steam and depending on the mass of the planet it may have been captured and retained by gravity or it would over time escape from the smaller planets such as the moon, mercury and mars.
Smaller pieces of debris from the breakup formed the inner planets, the various moons and asteroid belt. Just before or as the core fragmented the sun expanded in volume, due to the shock wave set up by the recoil, to the size of the present solar system. The recoil imparted sufficient momentum to the fragments that they were radially displaced from the sun's center and interacted with the gravitational field of the much larger and massive sun to form a planar planetary system; i.e. our solar system was thus formed.
Current Theory
Adapted from Robert Jastrow: Red Giants and White Dwarfs 1990 Norton
Current theory of planet and solar system formation speculates that some 4.5 billion years ago there was a large diffuse gas cloud which contained all the stable known elements. This gas contracted due to gravity and formed the sun and a large disk which contained small units of condensed matter. The disk of small particles eventually collected to form larger units and eventually the larger units collected together and formed the planets.
The argument for a diffuse cloud, containing all the elements that we know, from which our solar system grew over a long period of time begs the questions ; Where did the original cloud of material come from in the first place? Also what type / size of star created the elements? What happened to the star from which the elements formed ? Was it a giant star that subsequently exploded in a supernova ? Did the cloud from which our sun and solar system develop form from such a supernova?
The elements heavier than helium in our solar system must have been created by fusion in the center of a star. Elements beyond helium require a star for their manufacture. ( 1 )Thus although hydrogen and some helium existed after the theoretical big bang occurred there were no elements of higher atomic number than 2. ( ref. 1 solar nucleosynthesis )
The earth contains all the known stable elements with surprisingly high amounts of carbon, oxygen silicon and iron. These four elements are particularly stable with high nuclear binding energies associated with them. ( ref. 2 relative abundance and nuclear binding energies of the elements )
There is a large body of evidence of iron in the earth, it is thought to make up the molten core of the earth with a radius of 2800 miles. ref 3 core of the earth ) . This amount of iron would make up 20 - 30 % of the mass of the earth. Large amounts of iron are speculated to be in other inner planets of the solar system.( Ref. 4 inner planetary composition) This leads to the questions; Why is there so much iron and where did it come from?
If the elements in our solar system came from a supernova where is the rest of the mass of the supernova? Supernovas require stars of masses of at least 10 times the mass of the sun so where is the 98 or so percent remnant of the supernova?
We are in a very isolated part of a spiral arm of the milky way galaxy. $.5 Billion years ago the galaxy as a whole was smaller but in much the same relative position especially the spiral arms. There are no remnants of a supernova that is close enough to us to explain our spectacular collection of elements.
This question arises from the theoretical size of a star that can undergo a supernova explosion. That size is thought to be at least 10 times our sun's mass.( Ref. 5 Supernovae size )
We can then ask : What volume of the surrounding space was filled with the debris of the supernova?
Our nearest neighbour stellar body ( ies ) is / are the Alpha Centari group at 4 Light years.( ref. 6 Alpha Centari ) If the gas cloud, from which our solar system formed, could have extended to one half that distance and contained only the material required to set up our solar system a density for the gas can be calculated..
The calculated density for such a diffuse gas cloud is ~ 43 atoms of hydrogen per liter, assuming all the atoms are hydrogen. From this we can then ask: How long would this assembly take? especially since the mass is so dilute and the particles would have a relatively high amount of kinetic energy. ( Of course 5 billion years ago the two systems may have been closer together than they are now so one can try to make adjustments in calculating the size of the cloud and its density) Nevertheless it would take a very long time for the sun to condense to its present size from such a dilute cloud of hydrogen if it in fact could. This is because the gravitational effect is much smaller than the kinetic energy of the gas particles even near absolute zero.
It seems unlikely, to me at least, that an event such as a supernova could actually have happened that would produce the relatively large quantity of fusion products such as iron, silicon, oxygen, carbon, nitrogen , etc., that are found in the inner planets, and that the end result is a dust cloud from which our solar system evolved and still be confined to the relatively small volume of space from which our solar system is supposed to have arisen.. I would expect that such a dust cloud, if created by a supernova, to have been much greater in volume and it would have reformed to produce a more massive star than the sun. As well the reformed star which would have condensed out of a supernova debris should have contained a greater percentage of fusion end products than the sun does. This expectation arises from the fact that the higher atomic weight elements are more massive and thus would not have traveled as far from the center of a supernova explosion than the much lighter elements hydrogen and helium.
Is it in fact possible to form planets such as found in our solar system by the agglomeration of meteorites? First I question the feasibility of such a process considering the time element it would take. To get a reasonable time the density of rock sized objects would have to be very great. Much greater than in a diffuse cloud of gases as has been speculated for the origin of the solar system. Newton's laws of physics applies to our solar system and to an accretion disk if there were one. The relatively long distances between the objects would have only allowed a small gravitational attraction and thus the contained angular momentum of the objects would have kept them apart and in a rather stable orbit around the sun.
There would have been little outside forces acting on the individual particles that would have caused them to accrete into larger bodies. It is only when objects have masses of several tonnes that they would exert enough gravitational force to cause accretion of smaller objects. As well all objects orbiting at a particular radius do so at the same speed ( Kepler's Laws ) so there would not have been a large enough speed differential to cause then to collide to form larger bodies.
From studies of nebulae, which are thought to be a result of giant stars exploding as supernovae, the gas clouds extend over many light years and the expansion continues for extremely long periods of time. It would therefore be expected that the time for condensation of such a cloud would be even greater since the kinetic energy imparted to the atoms from a supernova explosion is enough to disperse them to infinity. ( See Hansen and Kawaler Stellar interiors Springer - Verlag )
There does not seem to be any evidence that such a nebula, from which our sun could have formed and condensed, existed or continues to exist. ( Ref. 6 Studies of the crab nebulae )
Secondly if there were no underlying reason for the planets to form why would they form the way they did. From a statistical standpoint it would seem more likely that a greater number of smaller planets would have formed instead of the mishmash of four small planets near the sun and four much larger and different planets further out from the sun that we have at present. The spinning star and its associated disk would have operated much as does a centrifuge and the heavy material of the inner planets should have ended up further out and the gas giants should have been closer to the sun
If in fact the planets formed from small asteroids why is there gases associated with some of them and not with others. Of the inner planets only Venus and Earth have significant atmospheres.
In the early stages of planet formation from planetismals accreting as the planets formed the heating due to kinetic energy from the collisions would have given all gases enough energy to escape from the growing planets as initially there would not have been enough mass to hold the gases captive to the planets, most if not all of the gases would have ended up in the sun or would have been dispersed in space. This is evidenced by Mercury, Mars and our moon which are too small to hold any appreciable gases.
There is no reasonable way to explain the atmospheres of either Earth or Venus if they grew from small parts If the water on the earth came from some comets colliding with the earth, the comets speed would have been at least 40,000 mph and at such a velocity hitting a solid earth that had no atmosphere the energy released by the collision would have been great enough to allow all the water to escape from the earth’s gravitational field and no water could have ever been captured by the earth.
What about nitrogen. There are few inorganic forms of nitrogen found on earth. They are mostly the nitrate deposits such as sodium and potassium nitrate. The majority of nitrogen is contained in the atmosphere some 8 X E14 metric tones because it is so uncreative.. It is not found in appreciable extent in meteorites but is found in large quantities in the atmospheres of Jupiter and Saturn. as ammonia. ( Ref. 7 Escape velocities of planets and kinetic velocities of gases )
Theory
First a definition. Let one stellar mass be the minimum equivalent mass of hydrogen required to produce the temperatures and pressures required to initiate nuclear fusion as a result of gravitational attraction of the mass of hydrogen. This is approximately 5 % of the sun's mass. roughly 1 X 1029 kg. ( ref 8 nuclear fusion )
My Thesis is:
There is a range of stars from stellar mass 1, [ which I define as the minimum mass for fusion to occur. ] ,which will initiate the fusion of hydrogen to helium, with the subsequent release of large amounts of energy, to stellar mass 20 such as our sun, to stellar mass 200 which are pre-supernova giants are. ( There are even possibly much larger stars but they are not required for my argument so will be ignored. )
Supernovae have been studied and they confirm the ability of stars of that size ( 200 solar masses , approximately 10 times that of our sun ) to fuse elements up to the iron group.( Ref. 8 Supernovae and nucleosynthesis ). Once the core has been converted to mostly iron it can no longer produce energy by fusion to heat the core to develop pressure to resist the gravitational pull of itself. The production of either heavier or lighter elements from an iron nucleus requires the input of energy, the nucleosynthesis of elements from iron is an endothermic process. The very hot core then collapses very rapidly until it reaches the density of neutrons / protons and a recoil occurs that creates a shock wave that blows apart the star and if we are lucky we see a supernova. ( Ref. 9 Supernovae )
The question arises: what will happen to stars in the middle range of stellar masses, such as those that are1 - 1.25 times as massive as our sun or about 25 stellar masses as I defined earlier? Such stars may be massive enough to collapse into a neutron star simply from gravitational attraction but are not massive enough to undergo a supernova explosion at the end of the iron stage of fusion.
Certainly if a star can collapse to a neutron star then it must be able to fuse to an iron core the core must then collapse due to gravity once it has fused to an iron core. since there is no energy source to heat it to provide the pressure to resist the collapse. Depending on the mass of the core it may reach a density of neutrons or less as the electron cloud and the atomic nuclei are compressed. Eventually the compression will stop and a recoil will occur. As the core collapses it will spin faster and faster as it’s radius decreases. A shock wave will be set up that will cause the star to expand in volume and the core itself which is significantly denser than the surrounding hydrogen layers will possibly resonate or possibly break apart into large chunks which will have gained sufficient momentum from the recoil and angular momentum to move radially outwards from the center. Through a much less dense cloud of hydrogen and helium.
The sun is a relatively stable star and can be considered to obey Newtonian physics for the most part. A particle on the surface is attracted to the center by gravity. A particle below the surface is also attracted to the center by gravity. There is an outward pressure on the particles that keeps them in dynamic equilibrium and there only move within a small volume of their local space.
If the star was unstable and collapsing then other forces would be involved.
Since the two particles are not moving relative to one another they must be experiencing similar forces.
The surface particle will be accelerated in by the force of gravity and this can be calculated from Newton’s equations and can be expressed as the escape velocity from the surface. The star must be in hydrostatic equilibrium and therefore the internal pressure at any point must counterbalance the gravity at that point. The particle in the interior will be accelerated inwards with a similar value for its escape velocity from the surface of the sphere on whose surface it is. The two escape velocities must be equal or else there would be an non random movement of the inner particle relative to the surface particle.
From this the mass of each sphere within the sun can be calculated.
Energy Production rate.
The current energy production rate is
Solar luminosity (energy output of the Sun) = 3.846 1033 erg/s Ref.http://science.msfc.nasa.gov/ssl/pad/solar/default.htm
From the energy production rate the mass consumed can be calculated
Since E= mC2 m= E/ C2 = 3.846 1033 erg/s / 9 X E20 Mass consumed is thus 4.27 X E12 gms per sec. or 4.27 million tonnes per second.
Since only 0.7 percent of the mass is converted to energy then the mass of hydrogen that must be converted to helium to produce that amount of energy amounts to 610 million tonnes per second.
When the star began the fusion process it wasn’t nearly as bright so we can assume it’s average energy output was somewhat less than 3.846 1033 erg/s. . I will assume that the average energy output of the sun over ire's first 8 billion years was about 90 percent the same as now since the second version sun is just over 4.5 B yr. 90 percent of its present output or about 3..4875 x E 33 ergs /s .
Correspondingly the average mass conversion would be 90 percent and so the sun would have been converting some 504 m t/s.
The total energy produced by hydrogen to helium fusion amounts to about 80 percent of the fusion energy available in going from hydrogen to iron then the time frame can be shortened to 80 percent of 8 b y or roughly 6.4 b years.
The total mass of heavy elements produced is thus easily calculated.
504 mats X 3600 s = 1.81 X 1012 t per hour
X 24 hours = 4.35 x 1013 t per day
X 365.25 = 1.59 X 1016 t per year.
X 6.4 X 109 y =10.2 X 1025 tonnes in total or 10.2 x 10 28 kilograms. Or roughly 5.3 percent of the sun’s mass.
It is estimated that 2 percent of the sun is heavy elements those greater than helium. This amounts to 3.46 X 1028 kilograms. This is based on the assumption that the sun is a uniform mixture of gases outside the fusing core.
However when the sun exploded only a few large chunks were sufficiently massive enough to be held together gravitationally and were segregated and blown outwards, it is likely that the remainder was dispersed as ionized gases into the greater bulk of the expanded sun (nova) and when the sun shrank back to it’s present size it resorbed and contained the heavier gases which may have segregated to the inner regions due to their greater mass and slower relative velocities We can only perform spectroscopic analysis of the surface layers of the sun.
The mass produced by the fusion process is 30 times what would be required for the solar system which I estimate to be 3 x 1027 kg the gas giants accounting for over 80 percent of the mass of our solar system. The fusion mass is approximately 4.% percent of the sun’s mass.
If the initial energy output was about 2 X 1033 ergs per sec. Then over 500,000 years the total energy would be 3.15 X 1046 ergs.
The core mass is only 5 percent of the sun’s mass would be 9.9X 10 31 gms 3.18 X 1014 ergs per gm ( mol ) of hydrogen.
The heat capacity of hydrogen is 20. 36 kj per kg per deg K. or 20 joules per gm per deg K. =203, 600,000 ergs/ per gm /deg K
This would have raised the temperature of the core by 1.56 X 106 degrees in the first 500,000 years. .
The sun’s core is continually heating and over the last 4.5 by Using less than 1 percent of the energy the core temperature could be raised to over 150 Million degrees k. . Hence other fusion reactions are possible. There is no reason that the temperature of the core cannot rise continually since the dense inner gasses of the sun are a very effective insulator.
The rare and radioactive element technetium has been identified in red giant stars similar in size to what ours once was and will once again become.
This is very important as all isotopes of it are radioactive and will decay to other more stable elements. The longest half life of technetium is far too short for it to have been in the original makeup of the red giants it is found in as they are estimated to be at least 10gy.
This means that there must be a viable and real fusion process that can make technetium.
If it is possible for technetium to be synthesized in a star of mass 1.89 x 10^30 kg then it follows that all lesser elements can be synthesized as well. This means that our sun will eventually be able to fuse a core of material to the element iron and beyond at which point the core will collapse and fragment to form planets.
In the core where fusion is releasing tremendous energy the situation is different. Initially the core had a very high density until fusion started. As the fusion process started the energy release was very high and the energy could not escape due to the insulating quality of the dense gas. Some experts believe that it takes a 100,000 to 1,000,000years for the heat to escape. The heat caused the temperature of the core to rise and this accelerated the fusion process so that the core reached a very high temperature very quickly. . 100,000 years of the suns energy heating a small ~ 5 % of the mass of the sun would cause it to reach a central temperature of over 150,000,000 deg K. This is high enough for the CNO as well as other fusion reactions to take place.
As the core heated it expanded according to PV = nRT.
The pressure at the core is effectively a constant as is n the number of particles in the core and R is the gas constant.
Effective then V = kT where k = nR/P
I postulate that the sun was originally formed some 13 - 15 billion years ago and that it was at least 10 - 25 % more massive than it is now. It was a single solitary star that turned on and burned for 8 billion years fusing hydrogen into helium in the core ( at a rate comparable to the current 4/.07 million tons per second ).( Ref. 10 Fusion rate of sun would have burned much as it does now. The original hydrogen core fused to helium and then the core collapsed until the helium began fusing to the element carbon. The helium fusing lasted a relatively short time since the energy requirements to prevent collapse were the same as for when hydrogen was fusing and since helium fusing is not as energetic as is hydrogen fusing more helium had to fuse per second as compared to hydrogen . This was achieved by a gravitational collapse to a smaller volume with an increase in temperature and as the helium was exhausted the resulting carbon core then collapsed until the pressure and temperature allowed the element carbon to fuse. The sun then went through rapidly successive fusing and collapsing stages until the core was essentially iron surrounded by layers of lighter elements as in the classic onion skin of an exhausted pre supernova star. At each stage of collapse the core gained angular momentum and spun faster. Unlike the much larger pre supernova star( Ref. 11 Supernova Stars ) ( 10 Sun masses ) however the sun’s core did not have a large enough mass and as a result its spent core could not under go a supernova explosion.
I propose that what followed the core reaching the iron stage of fusion was again a gravitational collapse with a subsequent recoil. However the smaller size of the sun prevented a supernova from occurring since its core was not massive enough to recoil as violently as required for a supernova to occur, it merely went nova. .However the core recoiled with sufficient energy and rotational speed , due to its increase in angular momentum as it collapsed, to break apart and send the fragments shooting outwards at the same time causing the sun to expand to beyond the radius of present day Uranus. The expanded sun would have cooled considerably and increased in size to be viewed as a red giant, The density of the associated gas cloud would have varied with the distance from the center.
I propose that the eight closest planets, along with their moons, of our solar system were formed as the fragments of the core moved radially outwards from the center. The momentum of the parts was conserved as approximately half moved in one direction and half in the opposite direction.
( I believe that the part that became the core of the planet Jupiter was ejected out one side of the sun's core and that the slightly smaller planetary cores of Saturn, Neptune , Uranus, Mercury, Venus , Earth, Mars were ejected out the other in an equal and balanced classical Newtonian reaction. The smaller planets and their moons and the asteroid belt are merely the debris of the core fragmentation.) The collapsed core was a very dense gas and as it broke up some globules of mater were strung together and rotated around a common center of gravity and eventually coalesced into a planet moon system as the earth or Saturn and Jupiter.
The angular momentum was transferred to the planetary bodies from the interaction with the hydrogen gas of the sun as the core fragments expanded once out of the high pressure at the center of the sun. The different fragments that formed Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune ended up in their respective orbits where they began attracting hydrogen and helium as well as well as holding onto the gases and elements that were in the globules from the core. Over time gases such as ammonia and methane and water formed due to chemical reactions, Over time they kept collecting gases from the expanded sun as they began orbiting inside the greatly expanded sun. Different gas densities associated with the different orbital radii can explain why the gas giants ended up with different amounts of hydrogen associated with each of them.( this is not to say that the cores of the four largest planets are the same size, clearly they are not) As the sun slowly contracted and reignited due to gravity the planets attracted as much hydrogen as they could based on their individual masses and the density of the hydrogen available to them, this resulted in the planetary system we now have I believe that this explains the origin of our solar system much better than the assembly from a diffuse gas cloud.
The fragmentation was sufficiently energetic that it could occur, being about 1 % or less than that of a supernova explosion and sufficiently lacking in energy that the original star was only disrupted enough that it would have expanded to possibly the size of the present solar system . The core fragments were extremely hot and existed as extremely dense plasma at fragmentation. The large fragments had sufficient mass to stay together due to gravitational attraction as they moved outwards from the core Much smaller fragments formed the asteroid belt and did not have sufficient mass to coalesce into a planet.
As the core fragments ( planets ) escaped from the central position of the star they expanded in a fashion similar to air bubbles released underwater. The rapid expansion was an endothermic process and cooled the fragments greatly.
The four larger planets ended up in different positions due to their initial momentum with the smaller of the gas giants farther from the sun. As they began to orbit the sun they would still be inside the expanded sun and would be exposed to different densities of hydrogen since the density of hydrogen would have decreased as one moved from the center outwards.. As a result the largest fragment that would form the planet Jupiter was closest to the center of the expanded sun and was thus exposed to a higher density of hydrogen and was thus able to attract and hold more hydrogen than the next largest fragment that would become Saturn since Saturn was further out and the hydrogen was less dense in that position. The two smaller fragments that became Neptune and Uranus were exposed to even lower densities of hydrogen and as a result did not attract and hold very much hydrogen.
Also as Jupiter grew it was able to attract even more hydrogen and thus it became an unusually large planet. If the core of Saturn had been in the same orbit as Jupiter's, and Jupiter was absent, Saturn would have ended up almost as large as Jupiter is. Redo this section
As the fragments moved out from the center they expanded rapidly and cooled to volumes and densities at earth like pressures. They initially were moving at high enough velocities that they were unable to hold hydrogen and helium, as they reached there maximum distances from the center they then began to attract and hold the local hydrogen and helium gases and were thus able to gain angular momentum and mass. Since equal masses of material left both sides of the sun at the same time they were able to set up a coupling action with the gravitational field of the sun and spiraled outwards until they reached their present orbits.( It is very much like the centrifugal weights on an automobile as the rotation of the timing shaft increase the weights which are held by a spring move outwards held in position by a counterbalance between the spring tension and the centrifugal force acting on them through the shaft.)
The four inner planets and the earth's moon as well as the moons of Jupiter and Saturn were formed as the larger fragments sloughed off some minor parts as they moved outwards from the center of the sun.
The smaller planets Mars, Mercury, and the Moon were too small to hold any light gases, the kinetic energy of even oxygen would ensure a velocity greater than the escape velocity of those planets. The Earth and Venus are large enough to retain gases as light as nitrogen, oxygen, methane but not hydrogen and helium. The only hydrogen on earth is combined and helium is formed underground as a radioactive decay product. ( Ref. 12 Helium formation )
The Sun
The sun is considered to be about 20 times as large as is required for fusion to start. Ref 11 fusion in stars It may be fifty time as large can we accurately say? It is obviously at least as large as is needed. It is also estimated by some that the faster burning giants are ten times as massive, so suppose that is true.
The end of a star mass 1 star (ref. 13 ) is predicted to be a burnout when the core hydrogen is all converted to helium, It is thought by some that such a star would not have enough mass and hence gravity to cause a collapse of the helium core to a temperature and pressure for the helium to start to fuse to higher elements These smallest of all stars would be very dim and would probably burn for 50 to 100 b yrs as their rate of fusion would be drastically less than for our sun..
( Ref. 13 Low Mass Stars Predicted end)
The giants burn ( Ref. 14) out to iron cores that collapse and go supernova. In between are the stars of star masses 2 - 199 ( ..05 - 10 Sun masses ) what happens to them? ( Ref. 14 Giant stars lifetimes )
It would seem from first principles that between the stellar masses 2 - 199 there eventually would be a star or range of stars that are massive enough to burn to an iron core and yet are small enough that their collapsing cores are too small to severely disrupt the much larger mass of their stars but are still able to recoil enough to fragment into globules that would be ejected from the star with sufficient energy and angular momentum to be able to interact with the gravitational field of the star to form a planar planetary system. such as our solar system.
Energy Considerations
Current estimates of the size of pre supernova giant stars are that they are at least 10 times the mass of the sun.( Ref. 15 Pre supernova Stars ) It is also estimated that they burn out in about 10 million years as compared to the sun at about 10 billion years. We can safely assume that the core would be at least 10 times as large as our sun/s core. It may be 50 times as large since the mass is so great that the core temp would be much higher and therefore heat a much larger fraction of the star to fusion temperatures.
From the energetic standpoint the energy output is 10,000 times that of the sun. It is using up 10 times the fuel in 1/1000 the time. ( Ref. 16 Energy output of Pre supernova Stars ) If that is true then at the endpoint of a giant there should be 100 – 600 times as much iron and other elements at the core of the giant. When the core collapses and rebounds it should release 100 - 500 times the energy released by the sun undergoing the same process. From a mass to energy ratio the giant explodes with 100 – 500 energies / 10 masses for a 10 - 50 to 1 ratio. Based on this the energy released when the core of the sun’s collapsed some 4.6 billion years ago was barely enough to cause it to expand to the size of the present solar system. It would have been observed as a low mass red giant. ( It had indigestion and burped out a solar system. )
The early sun was massive enough to burn ( via nuclear fusion ) to an iron core even though it would have been only slightly more massive than our present sun. ( The mass of the sun is about 80 % of the mass required to form a black hole( ref. 17 Mass of Sun and black holes ) due to gravitational collapse. It is estimated that the sun will eventually collapse into a neutron star. (Ref Neutron star) If that is so then it is massive enough to fuse its core to the element iron since it requires a considerable amount of energy to form neutrons as an endothermic process than it does iron which is an exothermic process Therefore it must be possible for the sun to fuse to an iron core. )
Due to the small size of the sun the initial hydrogen to helium burn took about 8 - 10 billion years and the final burn from helium to iron took anywhere from about 1 million y - hundreds of millions of years due to higher temperatures. The binding energy per nucleon is 7.5 for 24He is 7.5 Mev for Oxygen it is 8.1 Mev /nucleon it is 8.6 Mev per nucleon. Since the energy required to keep the sun’s core from collapsing The energy released per nucleon in going from He to oxygen is only )0.6 Mev thus the burn rate if the masses converted are the same would be 0.6/ 7.6times the initial * b years or 631 million years. In going from Oxygen to Iron the nucleon binding energy difference between oxygen and iron is 8.6-8.1 Mev per nucleon and thus using the same calculation the time scale is 0.5 / 7.6 times 8b = 526 million years. However the fusion of helium to carbon may only use up 90 percent of the helium and the further process of carbon to oxygen may use up only 90 percent of the carbon this would reduce the helium to oxygen burn time to 511 million years. As the nuclear synthesis reaction continues the time per heavier element becomes faster since each element is approximately 10 percent less than the previous element thus we have oxygen to neon , to sulfur to iron so that the time for the final burn to iron is 370 million years . As well the number of reactants decreased rapidly from one species to the next. To convert he4 to c12 reduces the resulting carbons to 1 / 3 as many as the original helium. as well the energy released in the helium to iron burn would have only amounted to 21 % of the total output if there was 100 % conversion of helium to iron, this can be calculated from the energy per nucleon for iron approx. 8.8 Mev / nucleon and for helium 7.0 Mev / nucleon, of course there wouldn't be 100 % conversion nor do we know the rate of the later stages of fusion, therefore it is difficult to accurately estimate the time frame of the final stages leading up to the fragmentation and ejection.
It is very likely in my opinion that as the helium fusion occurred and as more heavier elements were formed that there were fusing reactions between them and helium and this created the various lighter elements up to the stable iron species.
If however the final amount of iron formed was only 80 percent of the theoretical then the helium to iron burn would have only been 1.3 billion years and the hydrogen to helium burn would have been 6.7 billion years.
As the heavier elements were being formed there was a continual decrease in the core which raised the temperature which in turn increased the burn rate and was in a runaway type of process which lasted millions of years
When most of the precursor to iron was consumed the core then collapsed due to gravity, since there was no further process to release energy available. The collapsed and rapidly spinning core reached a very high density, recoiled, fragmented and was ejected by the recoil energy The compact size and increased density of the ejected fragments had masses with enough gravity to prevent further breakup and allowed the fragments to form the planets.
This may happen again in another 5 - 6 billion years; a second solar system will form about our star.
Why a Planar Solar System?
The massive globules of matter which would have had a density of at up to 56 times that of the surrounding hydrogen layer were held together by very strong gravitational forces and the kinetic energy, imparted to them from the collapse and subsequent recoil, interacted with the gravitational field of the sun to establish their particular orbits. Since the breakup was relatively mild the fragments would have been ejected in a more or less linear path ended up in a single plane orbiting the sun in the same direction.
The result of the fragmentation imparted kinetic energy to each fragment based on its relative mass. (This is not necessarily true some fragments may have had more kinetic energy relative to the mass than others ) The reaction as I envision it is a collapse of a hollow sphere of mostly iron gas which is pushed inwards until the density prevents further contraction and then recoil occurs. The density and the mass of the core combine to create enough gravitational attraction that the core only fragments into several large pieces and some smaller bits. It may be envisioned as a basketball that is forced together under high pressure and then when the pressure is released the ball fragments into two very large pieces along with some smaller bits. Since the core had angular momentum from the sun it would be almost impossible to produce fragments that would orbit in opposite directions from this type of breakup.
The Asteroid Belt :Why so much Nickel -Iron?
The asteroids in the asteroid belt are thought to be mainly composed of nickel - iron, as is evidenced from the ones that have struck the earth and survived the entry and impact.
The asteroid belt has been around for at least the length of the solar system and it has not agglomerated into a planet. The argument that the individual planets agglomerated from such small items is profoundly lacking if in 4 billion years the mass of asteroids has not even grown to the size of the moon. Although there have computer models made of scenarios which allow for the growth of our planetary system out of a diffuse gas cloud these programs are written with a bias so that the results will be acceptable. I for one find it impossible to believe that planets would form with highly segregated iron based cores and yet have very little of the most massive object formed, the sun, to be profoundly lacking in such an element as well as lacking in the other common elements found in the planets that supposedly grew out of the same mass of gas that formed the sun. Considering that the sun was the most massive object one would expect that it should have acquired a substantial portion of the heaviest elements based on such a process. This has apparently not been the case.
Rather I propose that the asteroids are the debris of the massive breakup of the iron core and have been rotating in the same plane and in the same direction because of the arguments put forth earlier.
The asteroids as any objects orbiting a star have a velocity which is dependent on their distance from the sun, therefore the asteroids are all moving at approximately the same speed and hence cannot collect to form larger bodies. They would require an energy input to allow them to collect to form a planet.
The Moon
The speculation about the origin of the moon can be satisfied by treating it as if it came from the core of the sun along with the rest of the solar system. The moons appearance can be explained as being molten some 4 .5 billion years ago because it was in fact a very dense gas so as it cooled it first liquefied and then solidified as happened to all of the planets including their moons.
Jastrow in his book Red Giants and white dwarfs discusses a popular theory about the moon. The moon landings seemed to indicate that the entire surface of the moon had been molten in some distant past, Two theories were mentioned.
One was an intense meteor bombardment which Jastrow states " fits in with the currently favored theory on the origin of the solar system, which proposes that all the earthlike planets and their moons condensed out of grains and fragments of rock of various sizes. As the moon grew to its final size in the last stages of the birth process gravity pulled the material around it down onto the surface with great force. Each fragment of rock generated some heat as it crashed into the surface. The heat of the collision would be radiated away slowly but if enough impacts occurred in a short period of time, the total accumulation of heat could be sufficient to melt the surface to a considerable depth. "
The question arises as to how the moon became captured by the earth ? The speed of the moons flight around the earth is about 63,000 miles per hour. If it were traveling at that speed towards the earth it is extremely unlikely that it could be captured by the earth, it would most likely only have its direction changed slightly by the earth's gravitational attraction.
The earth and moon more likely originated as a strongly interacting binary coupled globules of the core that were ejected when the core collapsed and recoiled. As the coupled globules expanded and cooled they became spherical and remained coupled orbiting about a common center of mass as they do now.
The Earth's Segregation
The other question I ask is how could the earth have melted rapidly enough to achieve the well defined segregation of the inner iron core , the less dense mantle and the even less dense crust? This segregation can best be explained by the earth forming from a sphere of dense iron gas cloud with relatively small amounts of other elements in it.
The other aspect of the earth that is disturbing to me is how did we get an atmosphere?
If the earth is a collection of small meteorites that grew larger with time then as the mass of the earth grew it could not hold an atmosphere until it reached a size that it is now. Incoming meteorites containing volatile gases such as carbon dioxide, nitrogen and oxygen and even sulphur dioxide would collide with a surface devoid of an atmosphere with sufficient force to heat the light gas molecules to speeds that exceeded the escape velocity and thus an atmosphere could never develop.
The only way the earth could have an atmosphere of the present composition would be if it was associated with the planet as a massive hot cloud of material that slowly cooled. The massive cloud would have been large enough to retain the atmosphere it now has, the lighter gases hydrogen and helium are too light for even such a planet as the earth to retain.
Rate of Fusion Required to produce the Planets
The mass of the four largest planets contain considerable amounts of hydrogen due to their considerable gravitational fields. If we suppose that 60 % of the mass solar system was due to the fusion of hydrogen into the heavier elements and the balance is due to hydrogen the following calculations can be performed
Mass of planets = 2.7 E 27 KG
Mass of Elements heavier than helium 2.7 E 27 X 0.6 = 1.62 E 27 Kg
Length of Burning 8 E 9 Years Rate per Year = 1.62 E 27 / 8 E 9 = 2.025 E 17 Kg / Year
The rate per day = 2.025 E 17 Kg / Year X 1 Year / 365 days = 5.54 E 14 Kg / Day
Rate per Hour =5.54 E 14 Kg / Day X 1 Day / 24 H = 2.31 E 13 Kg H
Rate per sec = 2.31E 13 Kg / H X 1 H / 3600 S = 6.42 E 9 Kg S = 6.42 E 6 Tonnes per sec
This is about 1.1 percent of the sun's present rate of fusion of 561 million tonnes per sec.
Since we don't know the composition of Jupiter and Saturn we can only speculate on the amounts of hydrogen that they contain. It is clear that if we reduce the amount of hydrogen they contain to about 55 % of their mass then the rate of fusion to iron can account for the rest.
If we fix the lifetime of the star prior to the ejection of the planets as 8 - 10 B years and vary the value assigned as the percentage of the planetary mass of our solar system due to fusion end products we can determine the percentage of fusion products in the planets.
The planetary mass is about 2.7 E 27 Kg.
10 B years = 10 E 9 Y X 365 d / Y X 24 h / d X 3600 s / h = 3.1536 E 17 s
At 100 Per Cent conversion the required fusion rate needs to be 2.7 E 27 / 3.1536 E 17 s = 8.56 m T / s
at 90 % Rate = 7.7 M T / s
at 70 % Rate = 6 M T / s
at 50 % Rate = 4.28 M T / s
at 46.7 % Rate = 4 M T / s
at 45 % Rate = 3.85 M T / s
From this it can be seen that it is possible for our sun to produce the required mass of fusion end products in the time frame of 10 B years if the amount of hydrogen fused to iron and other heavy elements contained in the planets is approximately 53.3 % of the mass of the planets. This is what is required by the present conversion rate and allowed by the age of the universe if it is 15 B Years old.
The large mass of hydrogen associated with the planets in the solar system is due mostly to the planets Jupiter and Saturn which make up 91 % of the total planetary mass. This can be explained by a large mass of iron in their cores, which had a very strong gravitational attraction which enabled them to capture a greater mass of hydrogen as they orbited inside the hydrogen shell of the expanded sun.
From the theory I expect that the planets Jupiter and Saturn have a core of mostly iron that makes up some 60 - 85 % of their mass. The smaller gas giants may have iron cores that are from 70 - 90 % of their total mass. These percentages are guesses based solely on intuition however if the theory is correct then the gas giants must contain considerable amounts of iron.
Momentum Considerations
The conservation of momentum should apply to the planets if they were ejected in an equal and opposite reaction, as I have postulated. If it does then the distance traveled by the planets to their orbits should be proportional to their initial momentum.
The gravitational field of the sun acted to reduce their velocity to essentially zero perpendicular to the sun when the planets reached their present orbits . The assumption that is made here is that the distance is proportional to the momentum that each fragment had initially.
Therefore md approx. = k mv where k is the time it require for the planets to reach their orbits was the same for all the planets. This would be true if the sum of the momentum of the lesser planets equaled the momentum of Jupiter
Comparing values
md Jupiter = 1.90 E27 X .45 X 7.78 E 11 = 6.65 E 38 kg m
md Saturn = 5.67 E 26 X . 50 X 1.43 E 12 = 4.055 E 38 kg m
md Uranus = 8.80 E 25X .7 X 2.87 E 12 = 1.89 E 38 kg m
md Neptune = 1.03 E 26 X .8 X 4.50 E 12 = 3.71 E 38 kg m
Total = 1.53 E 39 kg m
It is thus seen that the cumulative momentum of the Jupiter and Uranus are just over ten percent higher than that of Saturn and Neptune. This is a very good correlation of the expected result if the cores of the smaller planets Saturn and Neptune were ejected with the opposite momentum to that of Jupiter and Uranus.
The dense heavy metal cores of the gas giants were all made at the same time and once in position in their respective orbits they began to accumulate atmospheres and since Jupiter was closer to the center of the greatly expanded sun it was in a region that was denser than the planets further out. This resulted in Jupiter being able to accumulate a greater amount of the gas than the planets further out Hence it has a resulting greater mass and also a greater amount of angular momentum.
Since the sun is in hydrostatic equilibrium there is no compression or expansion of the sun. Therefore the gravitational attraction for a particle must be the same throughout
|
Author
Logged
