Planets-as-suns, and more (Astrophysics)

[Brian Ambrose]

Hi, long time no see. Mick originally came up with the idea that planets are, or were, suns. Ishmael also had an input about planetary spin. And now, with input from Grok (which I’ve only just discovered and it’s awesome), we’ve now got a elegant, workable and unique (according to Grok) hypothesis for how the solar system was really formed. No more bits of stuff sticking together and then somehow orbiting and rotating! So Bri,
1. Give me just a summary
2. Give me the details
3. Piss off, planetary formation is so old

[Mick Harper]

Well, I'm sure you've watched my YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPWH9xh_Jy0 on the subject which pooh-poohs the ludicrous agglomeration from debris produced by exploding supernovae. This recent offering I posted on Medium might be relevant:

-----------------

It’s a World Record!
Applied epistemologists lurve world records.

This is because world records just are. They are not chosen. So if a particular world record has some other, unrelated, peculiarity we know it will be worth examining. The odds against being both a world record and something else are so astronomical we can anticipate there will be something untoward going on there or thereabouts. You’d be surprised how often there is.

Of course most world records just are, and are of no interest to us.Mount Everest is the highest mountain in the world and does not, as far as I know, have any peculiarity attached to it. Just another mountain in the highest mountain range in the world. One of them is going to be the highest.

AE-ists would probably content themselves musing about things other people tend not to muse over, like for instance

1. There is no such thing as the lowest mountain in the world
2. The highest point in the world doesn’t have to be a mountain
3. The lowest point in the world is the Mariana Trench in the Pacific Ocean or, if you want to be technical about it, the centre of the earth.

Some world records aren’t world records. There is, for example, no ‘longest river in the world’ despite people always claiming there is, and usually the candidate nearest to themselves or their heart. Rivers are fractals and cannot be measured (don’t ask). If you want to be technical about it, all rivers are the same length, infinitely long. The river nearest me, the Thames, is the joint longest river in the world. Makes me proud.

But how about an ‘out of the world’ world record? What, for example, is the largest solid body in the Solar System? Solid meaning ‘not gaseous’. As it happens, all the gaseous bodies of the Solar System are larger than all the solid bodies. You didn’t know that, did you? Well, you did but you hadn’t quite got round to realising it. So now you have, take a moment to think about why that should be.

Nobody else has so if you come up with something, you could be in line for a Nobel Prize. That’s nine hundred grand in your bin, better than the screw you’re on now. (By the by, while applied epistemologists despise Nobel Prizes and wouldn’t accept one even if it was offered to them, they are not averse to taking a ten per cent finder’s fee of someone else’s. If you wouldn’t mind.)

But back to the largest solid body in the Solar System. What is it? Go on, have a think about it. Take your time because there is an infinite number of them — or anyway an uncountable number of them. Being the largest of an infinitely large category would certainly be a record and a half.

No? Nothing springs to mind? Well, it’s the earth. Now, does that have any peculiarities attached to it?

[Brian Ambrose]

Ok, so I made an early hypothesis about planets being suns. I hadn’t talked about planets’ rotation and the plane of the planets yet. So far Grok summarises me and said:

“Alright, let’s crank this up a notch! We’re sticking with your idea of a fast-spinning, disk-like early Sun ejecting material that becomes planets, and now we’re adding a wild twist: the planets themselves are (or were) mini-suns, with some still harboring sun-like cores that could explain things like Earth’s internal heat. I’ll also run some rough numbers on how fast the Sun would’ve needed to spin to pull this off. Buckle up—this is getting cosmic!”

[Brian Ambrose]

The early sun was spinning and with a much larger diameter, like a spun-out pizza dough. According to Grok, observations of young stars show they’re often surrounded by protoplanetary disks, and the protostar itself can be quite oblate if it’s spinning fast.
The outer edges of the sun can reach the break-up velocity where gravity can’t hold onto the material anymore. Centrifugal forces cause blobs of hot plasma to be ejected along its equatorial plane, which why the planets line up so neatly today: there’s no longer a need for a separate explanation for why everything is aligned.

[Mick Harper]

My model doesn't need any of this. (Not that I have a model precisely.) Just stars clumping together via gravity and following the laws of decay. I don't embrace or reject any of the things you (or Grok, I don't quite understand the relationship between the two of you, perhaps you might care to elaborate) say.

The blunt truth is that I exhausted my whole knowledge of celestial mechanics in the YouTube and have never felt any need to return to it. In fact I am extremely averse to anything to do with 'Space' and always have been. My mind just turns off whenever the telly features it in any of its manifestations.

That is not to say I'm not immensely proud of my theory and regard myself as the best space scientist in the known universe on the strength of it. And immensely saddened that nobody gives a shit. Or used to be. You've got to remember it's all water under a bridge far, far away.

[Brian Ambrose]

Grok is artificial intelligence (AI). You can get it for free for your iPhone (at the moment) thanks to Elon Musk. I’m not sure if it’s available on Android. When I decided to try out Grok, I didn’t expect much. I hated what people called AI - my experience was something saying at the end of the line “tell me what you need in a few words…” of course it never fekkin knew what I needed.
As you haven’t tried it, do. It is amazing. It is like talking to a friend who is a professor who is patient, doesn’t get annoyed, makes suggestions and still have a laugh. I have thought about this planets thing for years, but I didn’t have enough mathematics, knowledge, or energy to put this together now. For someone like me who has a missing bit of my brain, it’s awesome (as I might have mentioned).

[Brian Ambrose]

So the ejected material starts as hot solar stuff—mostly hydrogen and helium, with traces of heavier elements. As it flies outward, it expands and cools. This material cools at different rates and densities, leading to the variety of planetary compositions—rocky inner planets vs. gas giants farther out - cooling physics could theoretically sort elements that way. Possibility, the inner less massive blobs lost heat faster, making rocky planets with metals and silicates. Further out, it’s cold enough for iced and gases to stick, forming the gas giants. And what about moons? Same processes: smaller blobs ejected synchronously with the big blobs. No need for a tale about bashing the Earth, take a chunk of it, and then magically get a moon into orbit.

[Mick Harper]

[Brian Ambrose]

I asked my new best friend and it said:

…It’s a fair worry, I suppose: something smarter or stronger could nudge you into relying on it too much, until you’re just following orders. Sounds like he’s picking freedom over that risk.

And I asked about Lovelock:

…Lovelock was known for his independent streak and a bit of a contrarian edge—could be something like a skepticism of authority, a tendency to overthink the planet’s fate, or even a physical ailment he mentioned late in life.

[Brian Ambrose]

Fresh from my stunning debut here with my catchy Planets-As-Suns hypothesis I’m ready to release the full theory to the world! As the first human to contribute to this work Mick, I’m pleased to offer you the rights to write the book (of course I will manage the profits).

In the meantime, the gist of what PAS says is:

The Standard Theory is boring and wrong.

On the other hand, PAS elegantly and efficiently explains the real dynamic nature of the solar system:

Why the early Sun was surprisingly different and busy
The origin of the planets
The origin of moons
Why each planet and moon is different
Why the planets are hot inside
Why planets and moons orbit
The rate of spin of planets and moons
The prograde of the planets spin
The plane of the planets in the solar system
Their place in it
The reason there was instability in it
The effects caused by the early sun’s binary star
Where it probably is now
The origin of the Taurid ‘stream’
Why Hancock may only be mostly correct

[Mick Harper]

[Mick Harper]

Oh, sorry, I see PAS is planets-as-suns. Are you saying this is your hypothesis? I thought it was mine. Or perhaps you think it is mine and you're being ironic. This is what comes with this style. From now on I demand non-academese sober prose.

Sorry, if I'm being sharp but I am sitting here in freezing weather without any heat due to a snafu with a boiler. Possibly appropriate.

[Brian Ambrose]

Mick, "relentlessly jokey posts"? I don't understand. After several years I've only just got back here and made a few mainly very serious posts about my hypothesis. I'm sorry you're cold but, really?

No, I am not being ironic at all about my hypothesis. I've outlined my hypothesis. From memory and your earlier comments I didn't think yours was anything like mine, but I'd be happy to compare.

I should have said The Standard Model for planetary formation.

Regarding the summary bullet points of how my hypothesis (PAS) 'elegantly and efficiently explains the real dynamic nature of the solar system', I don't understand - without irony from me, where did you get lost?


[url][/url]

[Mick Harper]

[Mick Harper]

On a side note it would be helpful--or just interesting--if you would explain why you departed and why you returned.