Our solar system cosmogony (formation, previous, present configuration) has many theories. Jumping Jupiters, the Nice Model, rogue brown dwarfs and more proposals are suggesting that the planets have changed orbits, migrated. The opposite to what was previously predicted.
It’s like something out of an interplanetary chess game. Astrophysicists at the University of Toronto have found that a close encounter with Jupiter about four billion years ago may have resulted in another planet’s ejection from the Solar System altogether.
Astrophysicists find Jupiter likely bumped giant planet from solar system | phys.org
There are theories that made predictions of wandering planets including solar system planetary chaos and catastrophism.
The most successful simulations show that Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and a fifth planet, similar to that of Neptune or Uranus, started out all tightly packed and orbiting some 15 times further from the sun then our planet Earth. The lighter planets are sent out further by Jupiter and Saturn. A close encounter with Jupiter then ejects this mysterious fifth planet out of the solar system.
Recent discoveries of free-floating planets in interstellar space show that the ejection of planets could have been common, according to the study.
Computer simulation shows Solar System once had an extra planet | phys.org
The radical, complete change in direction from Newtonian Uniformitarianism astronomy, was not a surprise.
Scientists also proposed shrinking universe but according to themselves, got an expanding universe.
Alternative scenarios have very different dating, mechanisms, triggers, forces to the standard hypothesis. But they did predict or work based on those who were the fringe, pseudo-science, heretic consideration of planets and space objects playing musical chairs.
Jno Cook – Saturnian Cosmology
Jno Cook seems to base his interpretation on more academic and peer reviewed science. The results were anything but mainstream.
It all started very long ago. At one time, and from its genesis, Earth was a planet in orbit around Saturn, a brown dwarf star. Toward the end of the Precambrian (600 million years ago), the Saturnian System intersected with the Solar System. Saturn swept around the Sun, and back into deep space, to return at regular 26- to 27-million-year intervals. Over the course of time, some of the satellites (planets) of Saturn were wrenched from their orbits around Saturn to end up revolving around the Sun instead. The Earth likely became a Solar System planet at the end of the Permian, 250 million years ago.
From 600 million years ago Saturn kept entering the Solar System regularly to disturb its lost satellites now circling the Sun. At about 3 million years ago Saturn likely had a run-in with Jupiter, a Solar System planet at that time orbiting the Sun at a distance probably somewhat less than the Earth’s orbit today. The orbital period of Saturn was significantly reduced as a result.
During this last 3-million-year period Saturn started scavenging its lost satellites, and perhaps Solar System planets, all in orbits close to the Sun. The possibility of a “captured” planet again orbiting Saturn at its equator is virtually nil. Instead, the scavenged planets ended up in suprapolar and subpolar locations, the only locations which seemed to be dynamically stable.
Because Saturn had come in from outside of the Solar System, and most likely was a star originally, it would have been at a very high positive charge level – distinct from the Solar System planets. Solar System planets would have been attracted to Saturn when Saturn entered the Solar System – rather than be repelled as would be the case of two planets with nearly equal values of charge.
Saturn, with its stack of captured planets, was seen by humans (Homo erectus) and recorded in the shapes of artifacts in the Paleolithic of about two million years ago, and (by Homo Sapiens) as carved images in the Upper Paleolithic, from 30,000 BC, and by the hundreds of millions during the early Neolithic, 10,000 to 3000 BC, when the stack of planets was much more frequently seen.
A Synopsis – Recovering the Lost World, A Saturnian Cosmology | Jno Cook
In the future what about his and others comparative mythology ideas? These are all variations and modifications of the general implications of Immanuel Velikovsky.
Wandering stars and free floating planets?
a paper published in the Astrophysical Journal reported that as many as 200 billion rogue stars have been detected in a cluster of galaxies some 4 billion light years away. These observations were made by the Hubble Space Telescope’s Frontier Fields program, which made ultra-deep multiwavelength observations of the Abell 2744 galaxy cluster.
This was followed by a study published in Science, where an international team of astronomers claimed that as many as half the stars in the entire universe live outside of galaxies.
… the recent observations made by Abraham Loeb and James Guillochon of Harvard University are arguably the most significant yet concerning these rogue celestial bodies. According to their research papers, these stars may also play a role in spreading life beyond the boundaries of their host galaxies.
… “Tightly bound planets can join the stars for the ride,” said Loeb. “The fastest stars traverse billions of light years through the universe, offering a thrilling cosmic journey for extra-terrestrial civilizations. In the past, astronomers considered the possibility of transferring life between planets within the solar system and maybe through our Milky Way galaxy. But this newly predicted population of stars can transport life between galaxies across the entire universe.”
Planets Could Travel Along with Rogue ‘Hypervelocity’ Stars, Spreading Life Throughout the Universe
Although the odds are long of an invading sun or planet it only needs to have happened once. Did it happen in the past? Folklore around the world seems to be evidence it did and very likely will happen again soonish.
Planetary and Saturn Configurations
Wal Thornhill’s solar system capture theory
Wallace Thornhill has explained his Electric Universe version of how our solar system may have been formed, or captured. Wal is one of the leaders and creators of the Thunderbolts EU theory.
So what I’m suggesting is quite radical—that all of the planets and moons in the solar system did not originate with the Sun, they were captured. Capture of a brown dwarf star begins when the plasma sheaths touch and they “see” each other electrically for the first time. The brown dwarf changes from being an anode in a galactic discharge to a cathode in the Sun’s environment. The adjustment is drastic. The brown dwarf is no longer a star. It becomes the mother of all comets and subject to a steady electrical acceleration toward the Sun. That acceleration will tend to cause the satellites of the brown dwarf to be dislodged from their orbits and, in a dynamic equilibrium, strung out behind in their primary’s cometary wake. Since a comet’s ion tail is a discharge current, the satellites will experience “mega auroras” and devastating interplanetary discharges to varying degrees.
As a cathode in the Sun’s discharge, the brown dwarf will jet matter into space like a comet and lose electrons. This has the effect of reducing the gravity and apparent mass of the late star, which, in turn, modifies its orbit. Conservation of orbital energy requires that the cometary body moves in toward the Sun—in other words, it is captured. We see so-called “non-gravitational” acceleration to a small extent in modern comets. This lowering of the gravitational field of comets has given rise to the mistaken view that they are fluff balls. However they look like solid rock and they are solid rock. The effect on a captured brown dwarf is to turn it into a “low density” gas giant.
As the captured brown dwarf traverses the plane of the ecliptic, it encounters the current sheet of the solar wind. That may cause severe flaring and mass loss in the form of new cometary material. Even today, crossing the ecliptic plane is where comets are most likely to fragment. The enhanced electromagnetic forces encountered in the plane of the ecliptic may cause damped oscillations in and out of the plane until capture is complete. The presence of the newcomer is felt electrically by those planets that encounter its coma or cometary tail. Charge transfer occurs via the filamentary currents in the tail, which serves to space the orbits of both bodies until charge transfer is minimized. Circularization of orbits also occurs due to charge exchange with the solar wind until the voltage excursions in the Sun’s weak radial electric field are minimized.
Trying to devise an evolutionary model of the solar system from a simple beginning is not going to work. The expert was almost right, we need a separate story for each of the gas giants. And we need to identify their scattered family members. The simplest approach is to match axial tilts because phase lock with the primary is normal for a satellite. And a spinning planet or moon behaves as a gyroscope and largely maintains its axial direction in inertial space even when disturbed. A disturbance manifests as precession of the spin axis.
For example, based upon other independent evidence, Saturn, Earth and Mars were of one family. Their axial tilts are 26˚44’, 23˚27’, and 23˚59’ respectively. Saturn still has its ephemeral water-ice ejecta rings. And its calculated “density” is the lowest—less than water—a result of its recent severe discharge activity.
Assembling the Solar System | holoscience
Until recently Saturn was an independent brown dwarf star with its own entourage of close-orbiting small planets. As a small star approaching the Sun, Saturn flickered like a faulty electric light when the two stellar magnetospheres (plasma sheaths) touched. Saturn’s electrical power was usurped by the Sun and its appearance changed dramatically. Such rapid variability in the appearance of stars is well documented. Before dimming forever, Saturn would have flared up to relieve the stresses caused by the sudden change in electrical environment. Saturn’s present low internal electrical stress, as indicated by its low apparent mass, suggests ejection activity. But even so, the core of the electric star has not completely cooled — Saturn still radiates more than twice the heat it receives from the Sun. And we have a simple explanation for the origin of Saturn’s mysterious short-lived rings.
… As the ancients observed, Saturn was our primordial parent star. Of course we must be careful in our identification. But there is one physical characteristic that links the parent with its offspring. It is the axial tilt. Like our moon, satellites tend to orbit their primary with the same face always turned toward it. If they orbit in the equatorial plane, their spin axis will be aligned with that of the primary. As gyroscopes, the satellites will retain the same tilt even if jolted from their orbit, although the process may induce a wobble of the spin axis. It is therefore highly significant that two key planets identified by the ancients — Saturn and Mars — have axial tilts closely similar to that of the Earth. The tilt of Saturn, at 27 degrees to the ecliptic plane, is itself an enigma — unless it formed independently from the Sun.
Cassini’s Homecoming | holoscience
Cosmogony of the Solar System by John Ackerman
A very alternatively thinking origin of the solar system.
the original solar system accreted from ice crystals, which encapsulated all the refractory compounds now present in the solar system. Since ice was required to enable the accretion of the smallest particles, this process only occurred in the zone from the radius of Jupiter outward. Outbursts from the young Sun quickly expelled gaseous hydrogen and dust from the inner solar system. At the radius of Jupiter the dust grains catalyzed the formation of ice particles H2O, NH3, and CH4, which 3 remained in place much longer.
… In the proposed cosmogony, the solar system began with the accretion of the giant ice planets, Jupiter,Saturn, Uranus and Neptune in their current orbits. No terrestrial planets were present. The most abundant of these ices was water, because, next to hydrogen and helium, oxygen is the most abundant element in the solar system and because water freezes at the highest temperature. There is no reason to assume, as the current paradigm does, that some ten or twenty million years later, when the 10 to 30 earth-mass proto-giant planets formed, that the accumulation of ice suddenly ceased in favor of the accretion of the long-lost hydrogen gas.
I therefore maintain that the original solar system comprised four giant planets, Jupiter, Saturn,Uranus and Neptune, all of which are solid, low density, ice bodies and none are gas giants.
Their initial accretion, perhaps from localized concentrations, was rapid enough, therefore hot enough, to form rocky iron cores from the refractory elements trapped in the ice. However, their great orbital radii dictated that the completion of the process take a long time, so the bulk of their accretion was cold, with Jupiter requiring at least 50 million years and the others taking correspondingly longer, up to 400 million years, due to their greater orbital circumferences.
The sizes of the giant planets were dictated by the amount of material available at their orbital radii. The degree of differentiation of iron, rock and ice was also a function of the temperature, and therefore their distance from the Sun.
… considerable evidence of just such high energy impacts on the giant planets. Their temperature excesses are one result of such impacts. These impacts only effect the body of the planet locally The temperature excesses we observe are produced by hot gases emanating from the deep impact craters and heating their atmospheres.
Origin of the Terrestrial Planets: If the original solar system comprised only the great planets, the question arises as to the origin of the terrestrial planets. These could not accrete as did the ice planets because there was no ‘glue’ to bind the smallest particles together in the inner solar system. Fortunately, the same impact event described above provided the information needed to understand the process by which all terrestrial bodies were formed. They are born catastrophically out of high energy impacts on the giant ice (clathrate) planets. The most significant result of the impact on Jupiter 6,000 years ago was the birth of a new terrestrial planet, Venus. Because this occurred in proto-historical times, the entire process was documented in ancient writings and ‘myths.’ Proto-Venus formed as the result of a high energy impact on Jupiter (~10 42 ergs), of what was probably a massive galactic ‘traveler.’ A cloud of plasma several times the mass of Venus rebounded into space. The cloud was thousands of times the volume of Jupiter and glowed a golden color. This impact caused significant disturbances of the Earth. Most of the rebounded mass escaped Jupiter and entered an eccentric orbit around the Sun. It quickly contracted,giving up its gravitational potential energy and forming a star-like proto-Venus, with a temperature above 10,000 Kelvins.
The Cosmogony of the Solar System | John Ackerman
Wandering star and planet links
Planet X? New Evidence of an Unseen Planet at Solar System’s Edge
Stars Passing Close to the Sun
Close encounters of the stellar kind
Wandering Mystery Planets
Astronomers find ‘homeless’ planet wandering through space
Hundreds of Rogue Stars Found Just Outside the Milky Way | Universe Today
Two Stars Kicked Out of the Milky Way | Universe Today
‘Lopsided’ Supernova Could Be Responsible for Rogue Hypervelocity Stars | Universe Today
There May Be Hundreds of Rogue Black Holes in the Milky Way | Universe Today
Everything Is Electric?
Stars and binary star systems creating spirals in space? Are these plasma filaments and the mysterious glow is energised plasma? What created the strange spiral structure on...
PlasmaScape displays the Plasma Universe structures, NASA's Magnetic Universe formations, dusty plasma cosmology, electromagnetic filaments, Birkeland Currents etc in various local...
Empirical evidence is seen as the ultimate decider of scientific experiments, data/results and especially theory. You can not argue with empirical evidence. One of the main main...