The Failure of the Nebular Hypothesis
The nebular hypothesis: the Solar System formed out of a primordial nebula - a vast cloud of gas (hydrogen and helium) and dust (mainly of organic compounds and silicates), it has been found. Most dust particles in space are between a few molecules to 0.1 µm across. Sure, because of the tremendous and supposedly empty distances between stars in the Milky Way and other galaxies, it's natural to assume that the members of the Solar System were formed together.
If we assume that gravity is the primary force operating in the Universe, it would naturally cause the coalescence of gas and dust to form stars and planets.
When we look through big telescopes, we find dusty disks surrounding nearby stars. Astroscientists assume that those disks are the remnants of the material from which stars form. Unfortunately, that's the deductive method in operation. It's a mere statement of faith. No experiments have been done to back up the assumption.
Anyway, it remains in mainstream astroscience totally acceptable to believe that the Sun and planets were formed in collisions and accretion of matter in the primordial nebula, the proto-solar disk.
Holes in the Nebular Hypothesis
One problem with the nebular hypothesis is that although a slowly rotating cloud of gas and dust might collapse under gravity, sooner or later, centrifugal forces will prevent further collapse. That's because rotatory energy must dissipate if the cloud is to collapse further. Even so, assuming a star forms inside proto-stellar disks, another big problem is that gravitational interactions within and around the disk cause protoplanets to spiral into the central star. Wave a red flag: -
Compounding that is why the central star – being the most collapsed entity in the nebula – rotates the fastest. The thing is that the Sun rotates slowly on its axis. In reality, nearly all the angular momentum in the Solar System is with the orbiting planets. Also, there's the fact that the Sun's rotation axis differs from the plane of the orbiting planets.
A Watery Incongruity in the Nebular Hypothesis
Our homeworld, we all know, is a watery one. Here's the thing: the region where our planet is supposed to have formed in the primordial nebula was way too hot for liquid water to become part of an accreted solid body. So, what do astroscientists come up with to explain WHY the Earth is replete with water?
Answer: meteorites and comets brought the stuff here.
Is there any empirical evidence to back this assumption?
Look at the rings of Saturn. Does gravitational accretion seem to be working there? Clearly not. Actually, it's hard for planetesimals to accrete to a size of just a kilometer across. And then, to remain in one piece after a collision, a planetesimal must be at least 1,000 km across for its gravity to be strong enough to keep hold of the debris caused by any collision:
Think carefully about that.
Gas Giants Make No Sense
The number of exoplanets found by the Kepler space telescope is enormous. There are many various bodies with a wide variety of properties out there in the Milky Way Galaxy. As of May 2021, there were over 4,000 confirmed planets, including hot Jupiters, super-Earths, and binary planets. Kepler is a retired space telescope launched by NASA on 7 March 2009 to discover planets orbiting nearby stars. It's named after astronomer Johannes Kepler.
How can HOT Jupiters form from a relatively cool accretion disk? Only violent activity from the newly formed central star can result in HOT Jupiter-sized planets with ‘thick’ atmospheres. The discovery of MANY hot Jupiters around assumed 'central' stars clearly shows the nebular hypothesis to be invalid.
The Oxygen Anomaly
NASA’s Genesis spacecraft pictured above returned to Earth on 8 September 2004. The probe's task was to observe the solar wind, capture some of its particles, and return them to Earth for analysis. The idea was to discover the way our world was formed.
What an excellent idea. Pity about the mishap on landing back on Earth, but never mind. We still acquired interesting data.
Professor Kevin McKeegan’s announcement at the 2008 Lunar and Planetary Science Conference that: “The pattern of oxygen isotopes on the Sun differs greatly from that of the Earth” took astroscientists by surprise. They didn’t realize that the Earth and Sun could have different isotopic compositions. Genesis confirmed that.
Oxygen is the third most abundant element in the Universe. The oxygen-16 isotope forms 99.67%, oxygen-17 contributes a tiny 0.04%, and the oxygen-18 isotope exists as a measly 0.02%. However, Professor McKeegan announced that the Sun has more oxygen-16 relative to oxygen-17 and oxygen-18 than has seawater. That's a significant mismatch.
So, the oxygen isotope ratios in seawater are nothing like those of our 'supposedly' parent star. Is the Sun really our parent star? Genesis said NO! Wave a red flag: -
Mainstream astroscientists have NO theory about how our world got its water – never mind its differing ratio of oxygen isotopes to those of the Sun. Clearly, the model of stellar and planetary gravitational accretion is utter nonsense.
A Better Idea than the Nebular Hypothesis
Astroscience today is constrained by mathematics and the gravicentric paradigm. Mathematics is NOT science. Computer modeling is NOT science. Computer programs are written by people using data that might be incorrect because of mistaken assumptions.
A better idea is NOT to follow the gravicentrics, but those with a sound knowledge of electrical engineering. Okay, that may sound weird. However, electrical engineers know more about reality than the ‘Harry Potter’-like gravicentrics.
Electricity and magnetism combined naturally form the spark of life. It's everywhere – all around us and throughout the Universe. It makes the nervous system sense things. It makes the EYES see things.
Gravity is essentially a secondary electromagnetic phenomenon. It varies with the local electromagnetic environment, which changes with the physical properties of the abiding star. In our case, it happens to be (for now) that familiar bright yellow object in the daytime sky.
The Sun's Not Our Parent Star
The Sun is NOT our parent star, as its oxygen isotope ratios reveal. That the isotopic ratios of water in Saturn's rings and satellites are similar to those on Earth supports the view that the former brown dwarf star Saturn gave birth to our world (and Mars, Venus, and Titan at least) before encountering the Sun as Saturn orbited the Galaxy.
When that occurred, the new electrical environment canceled out Saturn’s anodic glow, exposing its retinue of satellites (which included the Earth) to the harsh outside. The Earth's gravity became elevated. That made it impossible for large creatures such as giant lizards to survive under a blue rather than a purple sky: -
Might not that have been the cause of the Cretaceous/Tertiary extinction event of 65 million years ago?
Symbols of an alien sky would be drawn by humans much later, as the liberated satellites of mother Saturn moved into today's stable orbits around our new abiding star: -