SpirallingPlanets and

The life zoneA Brand New Look at our Solar System

and its Planetary ‘Habitable Zone’

Gerry Forster

IntroductionThe following article will present the reader with some different scenarios for

the original creation of the Solar system. These include the currently held scientific view of how the Sun and its planets were formed, as well as a couple of other alternative scenarios. However, since none of them has actually been proven to be true and correct, I will be treating them all simply as speculations – which is really all they are. I will then follow this with a brief explanation of the likely existence of a “Life Zone” that I believe exists in the present vicinity of the Earth and Mars.

I am not alone in this belief. Several well-known scientists also subscribe to this concept, but in my view there is a factor that seems to have been largely ignored or overlooked by mainstream science. That is the simple fact that the planets are steadily spiralling further and further away from the Sun. And, as they do so, this “Habitable Zone” - as it is called by those who support it - is gradually moving in the opposite direction! I will not go into it any futher here, but will endeavour to explain why I believe that this is actually occurring right now, and how it will affect the Earth in the not too distant future!

However, first things first, and I believe that there is no better place to start in this speculative article than by introducing the reader to some famous astronomical “Speculators” from the historic past, who have each added something to our present-day fund of knowledge about the Solar System and its possible origins.

It’s entirely likely that the reader may already be well aware of these famous people and their ideas and thories. If so, I ask their forebearance, and hope that they will not object to being reminded of the parts that these early scientists – albeit often fumbling amateurs compared with their modern counterparts – actually played in bringing cosmogony and astronomy to their present status as the most exciting of all the areas of scientific research. I don’t mean to denigrate any of the other sciences, of course, but it is a fact that astronomy and space science seem to be the foremost in capturing the public interest! Now let us meet some of those famous “speculators”!

1

Speculative Forerunners of Modern AstronomyIt’s interesting to note that some of the greatest speculative precursors of

modern science lived far back in the times of the ancient Egyptians and the Persians, but it was principally the Greeks who first began to really envisage the “big picture”. Sages such as Pythagoras and Plato began to seriously ponder about the celestial wonders that their forerunners had taken so much for granted. They had no telescopes or technological aids to support or affirm their ideas and convictions about the stars being great suns much like our own, nor had they any means to prove that the planets were actually other worlds and not just fixed stars. Their ideas were pure conjecture.

It was Aristotle, Plato’s star-pupil, who first suggested the Earth was actually a globe, but he also claimed it was the center of a spherical universe around which all the stars and constellations revolved. Aristarchus was the first to propose that the Earth was just one of a family of “planaomai” (Gk.‘wanderers’) that orbited around the Sun. He claimed that the Sun was the real center of the Universe! Unfortunately, since his theory wasn’t testable, his far-sighted proposal was rejected, and Ptolemy, a Greek-born scholar of the famous Alexandrian School now stepped into the limelight.

Ptolemy, alas. although originally a staunch supporter of Aristotle’s argument regarding the movement of the Earth, was far more preoccuppied with drawing up a catalogue of the visible stars, than with the Earth’s movement through space. Thus, most of his life’s work was spent on improving upon an earlier star-catalogue by Hipparchus, and he managed to catalogue over 1000 stars, purely with the aid of an astrolabe and his naked eye. At least, let it be said of Ptolemy that he was the first to explain the orbiting of the planets, even if around the Earth instead of the Sun. However, he had established the notion of a solar-like system, in which subsidiary bodies orbited around a central one! This was a great leap forward for astronomy.

The Dark Ages of AstronomyThus matters stood for the next 1500 years. By the 16 th century, Aristotle’s old

concept had fallen into the hands of the Roman Church, who promptly shaped it into a suitable form that enhanced their Biblical creationist teachings. To them, the sun was merely a revolving luminary that lit all sides of the Earth sequentially as it travelled around it, as did the moon. The Arabian sages, having sifted through the remains of the newly-won but ruined Alexandrian Library, now occupied the astronomical stage, producing calendars based upon the movements of the Sun and the phases of the Moon. Whilst these were originally put to religious use, they soon reached the hands of Western scholars, who then used them for valuable scientific purposes.

The Dawning of EnlightenmentThis situation remained virtually unchanged for yet another 1500 years, until

the era of the Pole, Nicholas Copernicus, the Italian, Galileo Galilei, the Dane, Tycho Brahe, and his German pupil, Johannes Kepler. Copernicus fought both Pope and Church, insisting that the sun, not the Earth was the center of the Universe, his only real error being that he though the orbits of the planets to be perfect circles. Galileo, who invented the first crude telescope, then saw the Moon’s mountainous terrain, and, by observing Venus’s Moonlike phases, confirmed that the Sun was the center of our planetary system. He thus ended the idea of an Earth-centered system. (Except in the intransigent view of the church, who nearly burned him at the stake, compelled him,

2

via the Inquisition to publicly recant his heretic views. However, we can be sure that his inner thoughts remained unchanged!)

Tycho Brahe, who had perfect eyesight, relied upon naked eye observations, of which he made many, that fully supported this new central-sun concept. But it was his pupil, Kepler, who, by studying the observational notes and calculations of his tutor, finally solved an irritating mystery that had sorely plagued his predecessors. He discovered that the planets followed elliptical orbits, and not circular ones.

This convincing proof of a working solar system provided an excellent foundation for Sir Isaac Newton to construct an all-embracing theory of celestial astronomy and physical laws. The enormous intellectual work of this English physicist genius has remained the cornerstone upon which all of our modern space science is based. Even the reflector telescope was the product of Newton’s great intellect, as was the discovery by use of a glass prism, that normal white light comprises all the colors of the spectrum. I could go on discussing all the eminent post-Newton contributors to modern astrophysical science, but I don’t think I really need to pursue it further than this. The development of Man’s knowledge of celestial matters and its modern refinements since Newton’s day are already widely-known.

What Does all This Tell Us?What is particularly important for us to glean from all the foregoing, is that

most of what we know today is all due, in the first instance, to pure and simple speculation on the part of a few mentally adventurous people who were born with that most inestimably valuable of all hereditary gifts; the inquiring mind ! In fact that same sort of speculation still continues among both scientists and lay-researchers alike. The only qualifying difference between the two groups is that the scientist or astrophysicist is considerably restricted in the exercising of his imagination by his professional commitment to orthox beliefs and practice. The layman is not bound by such fetters, so it is there that he has the advantage of being free to let his mind roam untramelled into areas where the dedicated professional scientist dare not venture. However, both are free to hypothesize and theorize, but in the case of the qualified scientist, his theories must always be scientifically testable. It’s hard to let one’s mind run free within such restraints. Nevertheless, even the layman must face that same hurdle, if he wishes his views to be seriously considered by the scientific community. Thus, in the final analysis, even the lay-theorist must produce some reasonable “backup” for his concepts. The only thing that he has going for him in this connection, is that Science itself doesn’t have an unblemished record as far as indisputable proof goes, so lay-men can take some comfort from that!

Science-Fiction Prophecies and PredictionsBut lay-people should never permit such matters of proof to constrict their

imaginations. Consider how many writers of popular science-fiction have invented entirely imaginative scenarios and technological machinery, weapons, and even cities, which have later turned out to be prophetically true! One wonders if Man would ever have conquered space by now, had not the likes of Verne and Wells written their fantastic ideas as purely fictitious yarns back at the turn of the 20th century? Thus I continue to speculate and theorize without worrying overly much about orthodox scientific opinion, and I urge other thinkers and writers of like mind to do the same.

3

Some Speculations on Solar System Formation

Speculation #1 The Accepted Scientific View

The currently accepted view of the origin of the Solar System is that it originated in a thick cloud of mutually-attracted particles of cosmic dust. After the Sun coalesced and condensed out of this cloud of dust and gas, it slowly began to revolve about its axis, trailing a swirling disc of left-over cosmic matter round its equator. Over aeons of time, this great disc of dust and gas gradually formed itself into clumps which then began to form into solid spheres of varying sizes. These, in obedience to the Universal Imperative, also began to revolve about their axes, settling down into steady, fixed orbits at differing distances from their parent star. These almost circular orbits were determined according to their mass, size, and various other complex factors which we need not discuss here. (True, this is perhaps an oversimplification, but to explain it all in detail would require me to write a book!)

For all intents and purposes, what is generally taught about the Solar System is as follows: The central Sun, because of its size and the atomic reaction of its primary constituent elements began to rapidly heat up and swell into a giant ball of incandescent radiant heat and light. In short, it became a star. A yellow dwarf, to be precise. As its blazing heat radiated forth upon its brood of planetary offspring, they, too, began to undergo several changes. They began to rotate around upright axes, and in doing so, adopted regular spherical shapes. As the Sun itself rotated so it pulled its brood around with it, along their orbits.

Those closest to their parent; the barren and cratered little Mercury, with virtually no atmosphere, and the earth-sized Venus (which has a near-molten surface, a very dense, poisonous atmosphere and a massive “Greenhouse-Effect”); became extremely hot, and were thus incapable of sustaining life. The Earth (and probably Mars) fell within reasonably safe temperature extremes and produced biological lifeforms. The next (fifth) planet either failed to form into a sphere, or it exploded – either through some inner pressure-stress or from a meteor impact.

The four great gas-giants; Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune; might possess small central rocky cores, but these are heavily surrounded by multi-layered, deep and dense atmospheres made up mainly of hydrogen, helium, and noxious refrigerant gases such as methane, ammonia and ethane. The final tiny rocky planet, Pluto, may possibly be a captured spacefaring planet or moon. None of the gas-giants could sustain any known form of terrestrial life – not only because of their distances from the Sun, but because of their huge gravitation fields and lack of breathable air.

Most of these planets possess satellites in the form of moons of varying sizes, (some of which, it is thought, could possibly sustain primitive life-forms), and there are also the asteroid-belts (concentrated largely in the region of the missing fifth planet, but other groups are also present in other areas). Also there are thousands of assorted comets which shoot across the skies and swing around the Sun at various regular intervals; some following enormously long elliptical orbits, others following much shorter ones.

4

However, the principal point I want the reader to observe is that, in the view of orthodox science and astrophysics, to all intents and purposes, the orbits of all these planets and moons - and even many of the comets – are permanently fixed. The only way in which any of them can be altered in any way is by the intrusion of some other celestial body, such as a large meteorite or a rogue asteroid.

Otherwise, barring such external intrusions or accidents, as far as most astroscientists are concerned, all of the orbital paths of the planets and moons in the Solar system are absolutely set for all time and locked in permanently! And when one thinks hard about it, considering the enormous mass of even a small planet or moon, it would require an incredibly vast amount of effort to dislodge any of the planets from their seemingly eternal and predestined orbital courses as they all whirl around their parent, the huge, incalculably massive Sun.

I think that, in the brief compass of these few paragraphs, I’ve basically described the generally-accepted Solar System model with which most people are familiar, having been taught to believe this since childhood. And I suppose that, for those people who are not especially interested in astronomy, this view of the Sun and its family is more than adequate for their everyday referential needs. So, since most readers will be hopefully already be au fait, to some reasonable degree or other, with this general description of the Solar System, I shall avoid going into all the finer details of it here. (Again, I’ve oversimplified the foregoing for the sake of brevity).

After all, this article was not really written with the intention of trying to teach my readers the fundamentals of astronomy. There are already plenty of websites and books written by people far better qualified and wiser on the subject than I am! My primary intention here is to bring out a few new points and issues that many of them might not have particularly noticed or remarked upon before! I have only reiterated the above current description of the orthodox view of our solar system in order to remind the reader of how established Science sees it. So let’s move on and consider some alternative scenarios, then I will be able to get to those particular points.

However, before doing so, I must stress that all the above, of course, is the accepted orthodox scientific view of our Solar System. But there are a number of other views, and mine are probably different to most! The ideas, thoughts and concepts that follow are basically my own alternative views and concepts. In some areas, my own speculations may coincide with views once held in the distant past by pioneers of Solar system cosmogony. The reader may scoff, but I subscribe to the old and now sadly-discarded concept of the planets originating directly from the molten sun, but have included much of my own original input toward this concept.

I sincerely acknowledge and admire the amazingly intelligent efforts of the early astronomers to explain the origin of our solar system, especially without having access to any of the modern technological aids that scientists take for granted today, and I feel sure that some of them were well and truly upon the right track, regardless of their lack of modern telescopes and computers. In my own humble view as a simple layman, it still comes down to having the right intuition and powers of logical deduction, which it seems are being left up to the artificial intelligence of computers in this modern age. And more’s the pity!

Now let’s move on to the second of these speculative propositions.

5

Speculation #2Note: Please note that I have abstracted parts of the following Speculation #1 from an earlier article of mine: “Is Our Earth Really Hollow?”. However, I will be expanding upon it considerably further here.

First PremiseJust think of the Earth as once being a sort of “balloon” of electrical energy,

which gradually, due to natural electromagnetism, or static electricity, became coated with fine particles of cosmic dust or matter, to such an extent that eventually it became formed into a solid thick spherical shell of either solid or gaseous matter. You can then see that there is a far simpler way in which the solar system, or even the entire universe, became formed!

As far as the solar system is concerned. I once thought the sun was originally a spinning ball of conglomerated cosmic matter, or space-dust, that trailed a wide disc of left-over dust and gas around its equator like a spinning ice-skater’s swirling skirt, and that the planets were formed out of eddying clumps of clotting material within this rotating “skirt”. But now I’m rather inclined to believe in the possibility that they might once have all been free-ranging spheres of energy that were “captured” by the sun’s rotating gravitational field. And that they’re now held at their orbital distances simply by the conflict of opposing electromagnetic fields between them and the Sun, depending on how strong their individual EMF fields happen to be.

But if it were simply a combination of gravity and centrifugal force alone that held them in orbit around the Sun, one or the other would surely have won out eventually, since our Sun is far from being gravitationally (or electromagnetically) stable. Its power-output waxes and wanes quite fitfully, according to the varying phenomena of “sunspot” EMF activity (vast magnetic storms and vortices) that flare up at spasmodic intervals. Ergo, the paths of the planets could be extremely erratic and our orbital distance from the Sun could vary well beyond highly lethal parameters for all life upon them, particularly Earth, where a matter of 20-30C variation could either freeze or scorch all life from the surface almost instantaneously.

A Matter of Considerable GravityThus, I believe that electromagnetic force must, somehow, be inextricably

interrelated with what we commonly refer to as “gravitation”. So any such violent fluctuations of the Sun’s EMF should have long since either drawn our planet into itself during an upsurgence of its EMF power, or, alternatively, during a waning of such solar EMF power, the Earth’s orbital centrifugal force could equally well have carried it free upon a straight tangent, beyond the Sun’s range of influence! I don’t say that gravity and EMF are the same, but I believe they’re related in some way.

Because of this, I can only conclude that my earlier premise of opposing EMF fields must be a correct one, and that Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity operates exactly as he predicted it would. (You can check out his theory in depth for yourself if think you’re up to it! Since it is only a theory, I will simply accept it as read!)

Incidentally, before I leave the subject of “Gravity”, I ought to point out here that, if the Earth is a huge hollow “rock bubble,” with a carapace or shell of around 600-800 miles thick, its centre of gravity would not be a focal point located at the centre of the globe. It would much more likely prove to be a completely spherical

6

field, located around midway through the crustal coating, since that is where the hollow Earth’s mass - and therefore its sphere of gravitational attraction - would be at its strongest. From there, if we continued onward inside the Earth’s hollow sphere, the gravity would grow steadily weaker again until we reached the central locus of the globe, at which point it would be effectively cancelled out by opposing pulls of weak gravity from all directions. I’d expect this to be a gravity-free zone.

I don’t subscribe to any of the complicated alternatives to mass-based gravity – such as Euler’s Impulsation Theory of invisible etheric particle-pressure exerting an unseen force which more or less pins us, and all other massy objects, to the Earth. And whilst I’m quite happy to accept the concept of a universal “ether” which acts as a non-intervening medium that is a carrier for all forms of radiative energy, I can’t contemplate such an unseen and forceless substance as any alternative to straightforward plain and honest Newtonian gravitation. It has served us well enough in our space-endeavours!

The Laws of nature and physics tend to support the “Occam’s Razor” view that “The Simplest Solution is usually the Right One!” So why do we need to complicate it further?

Putting a New Spin on ThingsAs to the rotation of stars or planetary bodies. This appears to be a universal

law that comes into play as a celestial body accretes matter to a certain critical mass, and reaches a corresponding compressive heat from the increasing friction between and within the accreted particles of its shell. You’ll never get a really adequate explanation from any orthodox scientist for the causes of rotation, spin or revolution in celestial objects, simply because they don’t have any to offer! Nebulae, galaxies and solar systems all rotate about central hubs, and all stars and planets revolve about their individual axial centres. And so also, it seems, do electrons around atomic nuclei. It appears to be an immutable Law of the universe, which begins with humble atoms and ends with the vast galaxies, that all such bodies must rotate.

I myself can only describe this phenomenon as a natural consequence of the acquisition of mass and heat to a certain critical degree. I believe it all comes down to simple kinetic energy, which is produced by chemical reactions releasing infinitisimal electrical charges (photons) from atoms.

Although orthodox physicists might well dispute this, I believe that all atomic nuclei carry minute electrical charges within electrostatic dipoles, and thus possess their own tiny magnetic fields, no matter how miniscule these may be. Their accompanying electrons are similarly energized with elecrostatic charges in dipoles, both negative and positive. Therefore, the repulsion and attraction between adjacent atoms (including their orbiting “satellite” electrons), must cause some form of general electromagnetic agitation. This then produces a basic EMF tumbling or spinning motion via their dipoles; a fundamental rotation, if you like!

If one considers the cumulative effect of trillions upon trillions of such magnetically-charged atoms in motion, the prime cause of such a generalised overall motion in large masses of matter becomes obvious. It is most probably initiated by the generation of a collective electromagnectic field after a certain large amount of kinetic energy has been attained through the combination of mass and heat.

7

Let‘s bear it firmly in mind that, even the tiniest molecule, particle, atom, or even electron, already inherently possesses such a potential for agitation or motion. And so it logically follows that a large aggregation of such self-motivated, negatively and positively-charged particles will further combine their effects into an infinitely greater rotary motion of the whole body or mass of aggregated particles. I can’t be entirely certain about this, but I suspect that an atomic reaction is produced in a somewhat similar manner after a certain “critical mass” of radioactive matter has been brought together. A good analogy is a demonstrating mob of angry people! They are all gesticulating individuals, but their general movement is omnidirectional!

But, again, no atomic scientist seems to be able to clearly explain just why a critical mass should combust, explode, or otherwise react with such instantaneous spontaneity. They only discovered that there was such a thing as a “critical mass” by simple trial and error - more often the latter, alas! It’s called “Experimentation”!

I guess this is just another of those uncanny things which makes us poor fumbling mortals look marvellingly towards that Higher Inventive Intellect who laid down so many other similarly astonishingly simple Universal Operating Rules when He designed this whole original grand construct that we call the Comos! (His Rules, as I may have mentioned elsewhere, are the same ones that Science so learnedly calls the “Laws of Nature and Physics”!)

Thus, it logically follows that, if the Earth is actually a hollow spheroid, then so also must other planets be – or most of them, at least! In fact, if you think about this a little more carefully, the hollow sphere is extremely common in nature and in physics, right across the universe. Consider simple bubbles, then think about ball lightning and simple geodes. Even electrons are tiny “energy spheres” !

Is it really so difficult to envisage that photons and electrons, and even atoms themselves, which Science regards as electrically-charged solid particles, are really miniature bubbles of energy? If you can get your head around that concept, then from there it’s an easy mental step to scale the whole thing up to something of star proportions - and further onward still, to galactic and even universal dimensions!

I have indicated how the planets could have originally been invisible spheres of electrical energy, probably in some sort of a great hollow geodetic electronic shell-like “grid” or lattice configuration. Now we are ready to clothe them with carapaces of rock. How? Well, let’s remember that the universe is full of dust and gas debris. This is from stars and other celestial bodies that have been exploding or “going nova” since the Universe began, as their allotted lifespans ran out and their energies were finally exhausted. Every star, planet or other free body in the universe has a limited existence – a “Use-By Date”, if you like. And they are all heading toward their unavoidable doom via a process called “Entropy”. This is formulated by the “Second Law of Thermodynamics”. Perhaps it might help if I state both the principal Laws of Thermodynamics - in as simple a way as possible.

Two Laws Of ThermodynamicsThe First Law, simply stated, says this: “All existing processes of nature

merely change energy from one form to another. In nature, energy is neither created or destroyed. Matter itself (which is potential atomic energy) is maintained at a

8

constant level. Processes change matter and energy from one form to others, but the total quantity of energy in the universe always remains the same.” In other words, Energy is conserved.

The Second Law, however, then goes on to tell us that: “As processes in nature occur, the total energy reservoir is reduced to simpler forms, with a consequent increase in what is termed “entropy”. As energy is used, it becomes less available for further use. Part of the energy spent in producing something is always lost via radiation, friction, or other effects. It becomes non-recoverable heat, that is dissipated into space. Ultimately, as things are going, the entire universe will end up being filled with nothing but a stagnant mass of low-level heat energy.” In other words, although Energy remains conserved, it is dissipated or dispersed in its simplest form as Heat, evenly throughout the universe.

An even simpler example of this is the way in which a computer processes electrical energy to do its work, say, of word-processing. All the time the machine is operating you’ll notice that it is also giving off heat. And whenever you delete a paragraph, or a batch of unwanted email or other files from your computer, the deleted bytes are also emitted as heat. This is also true of a computer or video disk or even an audio or video tape. Every time you play it in the machine, some of its content is lost in the form of heat. Eventually, the disk will gradually lose its formatting entirely and thus become useless. This is Entropy in action! The original energy is not lost, but it has been converted into its lowest form - Heat – and, as such, it cannot be recovered for any further useful, constructive purpose.

The End of The UniverseFrom this one can safely deduce that no new matter - regardless of anything

the astrophysicists may attempt to tell us – is now being produced in the entire universe! All of the matter that exists today, has been here since the very Beginning, whether it was produced by the scientist’s“Big Bang” or a Heavenly “Creative Decree”! Because of Entropy and this natural Second Law of Thermodynamics, those readers who believe that, in the end, the universe will be full of drifting burnt-out dead stars and planets, if they could only live long enough, would probably be disappointed. Instead, one should try to envisage a black emptiness of space, entirely unrelieved by drifting cindery star-corpses or the faintest twinkle of starlight!

Whilst the universe may very well be expanding - as the so-called Doppler“Red Shift” in nebular spectra appears to indicate - it is also decaying. Every time a great star goes nova and lights up the heavens with its final burst of blinding glory, all of the particles of that blaze of light will rapidly turn into simple, invisible, latent heat-energy. This entropy will lead eventually and inevitably to the Heat Death of the Universe. “Sic Transit Gloria Mundi”!

However, we were addressing the formation of the Solar System, not its dissolution! So let us now consider how these electromagnetic bubbles could ever have possibly formed rocky or gaseous carapaces.

Crustal Formation of Hollow PlanetsAs I have mentioned before, the universe, shortly after its original formation,

would have been quite densely clouded with cosmic dust, gases and other matter left over from the birth of the galaxies of myriads of stars, and this material would have

9

drifted around on the invisible “ether”, awaiting the approach of a field of gravitational attraction produced by a developing body such as the Sun, to which it could be drawn.

Or alternatively, the cosmic dust itself may have been flying across space at warp-speed after being flung off a rotating cloud of loose matter, as it spun centrifugally to form a nebula. Or, again, it might very possibly have been a combination of all these factors. However, it’s not all that important, as our Earth is still collecting such cosmic dust and gas even now, as it is being pulled, orbiting the Sun, around the Milky Way galaxy to which our solar star belongs, and passing through many vast dust clouds as it does so..

As I mentioned earlier in this article, if we imagine our planet (and all other planets) as an electromagnetic “balloon” with the gravitational field actually being its “skin”, it isn’t too difficult to see how all this constant inflow of particles of cosmic matter is being attracted to, and held tightly to it by electromagnetic force. (EMF).

Now if we imagine the passage of many millennia, during which time the incremental dust and gas build-up upon and around the gravitational field would grow to a considerable depth or thickness. The heavier elements would remain immediately close to the gravitational “skin” whilst the less heavy ones would build up on top of these. This deposition would continue, and we would see that the very lightest elements, such as the gases, would lie above the newly-forming tangible crustal surface. Thus a thin atmosphere would begin to form on top of the actual material crust. The heavier gases would be at the bottom of the atmosphere and the lighter hydrogen and helium gas particles at the top.

And so the process would continue on and on, down thousands of centuries with the deposit of matter packing itself down ever more compactly, forming a dense carapace or shell of matter. But it wouldn’t yet be rock as such. Another process is required for this transformation to occur. Heat. This would slowly come into play as the growing planet began to rotate, because of its own mass of rapidly-moving electrons, its orbital movement around the sun, and the interaction of its growing EMF with that from the Sun, which itself is rotating at a fairly rapid speed.

As the new planet begins to rotate, it creates heat in several ways. One could be similar to that of an electrical generator, caused by a rotating electromagnetic field. Another could be produced by the decay of radioactive matter, and a third way could be by friction between the surface of the rotating body and the particle-laden “ether”. There are probably others too, but these will suffice here. This “ether” is an invisible and neutral medium that is thought to pervade all of space, and through which all forms of radiant energy, such as light, heat, X-rays, Infra-Red and UV-rays, even radio-waves and TV signals, as well as assorted cosmic particles - are “conducted” or “conveyed” all across the universe.

(The actual force which impels these rays and particles is either gravitational force - such as attracts a lesser celestial body toward a larger celestial one; or some form of previously-imparted angular momentum. The latter force could typically be imparted by an event such as a celestial explosion or a tangential escape from orbit around a weakening gravity field, such as that of a dying star).

10

Nevertheless, whichever way the planet’s new surface is heated, the crustal deposits will begin to glow and eventually melt together into a cohesive carapace of rock. This phenomenon will not affect the EMF-gravitational sphere, but will tend to rearrange and recombine the materials in the molten shell, causing chemical reactions between its various substances and elements. Slowly, this carapace will begin to cool as the planet whirls through the absolute zero cold of space, until it forms solid rock.

Meanwhile the gases will have been augmented somewhat, both inside and outside, by the combination of chemical elements during the molten stage. Water vapor will now be present due to the combination of hydrogen with oxygen, and various other molecular combinations will have been produced. Their atmospheres will eventually contain, in addition to pure gaseous elements; many new gaseous by-products of some of these, and later, chemical reactions – oxygen compounds, such as hydrogen oxide (water), carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxide and ozone. As well as alkenes like ethane, and hydrocarbon compounds such as methane, propane, acetylene, hydrogen sulfide, plus ammonia, etcetera and so forth.

In our present solar System, these constituents differ a little from planet to planet, but in each of the gas giants the principal components are hydrogen and helium. The atmospheres of the terrestrial planets, Venus, Earth and Mars, are principally composed of nitrogen and oxygen, plus argon, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and water vapor, in differing concentrations. The tiny planet Mercury, however, has only the faintest trace of an atmosphere. Its main constuent is helium (98%), the remainder being hydrogen with only the tiniest traces of argon and neon. This is most likely due to its proximity to the Sun, as we shall later see.

However, I don’t think I need to carry the “electrical-spheres” concept much further than that at this point, as I feel sure that the reader will grasp the general idea from the foregoing as to the general principles of this, my first speculation regarding the possible formation of a planetary system.

This, then is my own “pet” theory regarding the formation of the planets and how they came to become the sun’s “adopted” (or even “abducted”) family of planets.

In the view of astrophysicists, the planets are held in their orbits by the Sun’s gravitational field - tempered to varing extents by the counter-gravitational forces of the planets themselves – which I believe to be simply another EMF phenomenon. Everyone who paid attention to their science or physics teacher when they were in school, knows that “Like Poles attract and Unlike Poles repel one another” – (this is not intended as an ethnic comment, incidentally!) and I believe that it was the outcome of this “battle” of gravitational (or EMF) forces between each planet and the Sun (and also between planets, too) that originally dictated the positions and order of the planets in the solar system, relative to the central Sun. So, if we can accept that the “force of gravity” is really a magnified or modified form of electromagnetic force, then regardless of the original method by which the planets were formed, the same basic orbital rules apply in either case.

However, I believe that I’ve spent long enough on this particular hypothesis for the reader to get the general idea of the concept So let’s now move on, and look at my second speculation as to how the solar system might have come to be.

11

This next one is a theory I share with the French scholar, Pierre de Laplace. An old idea certainly, however, one has to admit that most seemingly brand-new ideas have already been thought of before by the great scholars and philosophers of old! Let me add this. The fact that one arrives at the same basic conclusions independently, doesn’t automatically imply that one must obviously have “read it before and it has lingered in the back of one’s subconscious.” Quite the contrary! It shows that one has unwittingly followed the same mental path, and that one can now back up one’s own individual conclusions by pointing to theirs! Let’s now consider the third of my hypotheses on the possible genesis of the Solar system.

Speculation #3First Premise

This time, instead of either the sun’s spinning “disk” of surplus matter clotting into lumps, or “bubbles”of elecrical energy being captured by the Sun, let us consider the possibility that the planets were spawned directly from the young Sun’s own material, being flung off its equator by centrifugal force. This is basically the same concept as that proposed by Pierre Laplace, but with a few important differences.

In Laplace’s theory, the planets were born one at a time, as excess molten matter that had built up around the Sun’s equatorial belt was thrown out periodically in blobs. At first glance, this explains the orbital spacing of the planets very well. But what it fails to explain to me, at any rate, is why the Sun bore the four great gas-giants first. Or why these were rather curiously followed by four or five rocky terrestrial planets (taking into account the largish planet that I believe once occupied the orbit of the asteroids, between Mars and Jupiter). Here I should also add that I totally discount Pluto as being a member of the Sun’s original family of offspring. I believe that planetoid, and its so-called “moonlet”, Charon, to be captured space-wanderers, or perhaps moons of one of the gas-giants, that somehow got knocked out of their satellite orbits and teamed up together as a tiny planet-moon system in a new but remote orbit.

All of this presupposes that the Sun, in its infancy, coalesced and condensed by a series of collapses, out of a cloud of mutually-attracted cosmic dust and gaseous material into a growing solid sphere of heated matter. And that further gravitational compaction caused it to to rapidily heat up and spin at an ever-increasing rate. This would have soon caused it to form an oblate, squashed-down shape. In turn, this, would have led to the rapidly-forming star casting off any loose surplus molten material from its bulging equator. Eventually, as the sun’s rotary spin increased, it would have steadily become hotter, especially as it would now be attracting a rapidly growing influx of more and more cosmic dust from all directions. This would increase friction upon its outer surface, and would have added enormously to its heat.

I believe that in this way, the Sun could very likely have begun as a molten mass of very dense matter, and that, as further inner collapses occurred, and its kinetic heat-energy increased beyond a certain point, a chain nuclear reaction was started deep within the Sun’s heart. Thus it began converting its own hydrogen, by thermonuclear fusion, into helium. Thermonuclear fusion liberates energy in the form of photons, gamma rays and neutrinos. After a great deal of internal struggle and

12

turmoil, these eventually reach the sun’s surface (or photosphere), from which they are then free to escape in all directions as radiant light and heat.

By the time it had reached such a stage, the Sun would have long ceased casting off blobs of molten matter, and instead would have begun to shoot forth great bursts of incandescent helium gas out of its atomic interior, via those deep vortices which we today know as “sunspots”.

Formation of the Proto-PlanetsHowever, it is the cast-off blobs of solar matter (or “plasma”) that concern us

here. If the present planetary arrangement of the solar system is any guide, this excess plasma must have built up repeatedly. It would then have been flung by centrifugal force from the Sun’s wide equatorial belt at fairly regular intervals of many millennia between releases. At least to begin with. Obviously, this must have begun with what are now the gas-giants. Then, as the Sun became even more densely-packed, its rotary speed increased, the plasma-blobs became smaller but heavier, until the plasma finally ceased to be released. Now the highly-compacted and overheated Sun began to undergo the deep nuclear changes which started up its inner atomic furnace and turned it rapidly into a vastly-swollen, blazing star of enormous mass.

The plasma-blobs, still following the rotation imparted by their their parent, now took up orbital paths of their own around the Sun’s equator. The first to be thrown into orbit was Neptune, and he was eventually followed by Uranus. The next to be released was Saturn, followed eventually by Jupiter. We have no way of knowing just how much time passed between these releases of blobs of plasma, but the intervals would have been vast in our human concept of time! However, when considered on a celestial time-scale, they probably occurred quite frequently.

(Of course, I don’t believe that these blobs of matter were “shot” directly out of the Sun. If they had, they would just simply have kept right on going, since anything leaving the sun’s surface in such a manner, would have already surpassed the Sun’s “Velocity of Escape”, and therefore must be traveling at something close to light-speed! Also, there is no conceivable way that such a rapidly-escaping object or mass could slow down to a virtual halt and then go into an orbit around the sun.

No. It’s my belief that each of the blobs of surplus matter must have gradually stretched out from the molten Sun’s rotating equatorial region like a lump of chewing-gum pulled-out on the end of a stretchy filament. And then, eventually, the filament parted, freeing the proto-planetary blob, to continue whirling around the Sun in a steadily-widening outward orbit until it reached a distance where its own mass exactly counterbalanced the gravitational effect of the Sun.)

The Birth of The PlanetsThen, following the births of what were to become the gas-giants, (and here I

must enter deeper realms of speculation) the first of the “terrestrial”(or Earthlike) planets was spawned. I have some good reason to believe that this particular planet - which I have elsewhere christened “Astrida” – might possibly have been some sort of intermediary form of planet. One that was partly gaseous and partly terrestrial, and perhaps of a size in between that of Jupiter and the Earth.

13

This is the missing “Fifth Planet” or “Planet V”, that some astronomers believe exploded, or met with some appalling catastrophe - the remnant fragments of which gave rise to the asteroids. The primary Asteroid Belt now occupies exactly the position which a large planet (perhaps two or three times Earth’s size) was predicted to occupy according to Bode’s Law. (For which, see “Appendix A”).

In the total absence of any concrete data whatsoever regarding this missing planet, it would be folly to attempt to scientifically describe its hybrid condition, beyond what I have suggested above. At best, I could only make an imaginary science-fictional guess. So I will leave this to the reader’s imagination. However, whatever form it did take, it was at least the apparently-missing transitional interstage between the gas-giants and the terrestrial rocky planets.

The Birth of MarsNow we come to the planet Mars. Mars is so much smaller than the Earth,

being between half to two-thirds the size of our planet, that I often find myself pondering if it was actually a large moon of Astrida, and that perhaps another, rather larger-than-Earth sized planet might (if only to fulfil Bode’s Law) conceivably have occupied the current orbit of Mars, but met with a similar fate to my suggested planet, Astrida, thus producing a second asteroidal belt.

If this were to someday prove to be the real truth, it then becomes a realistic proposition that our own Moon, which is generally thought to be far too large to be a natural satellite of the Earth, might well have been a satellite of that larger planet instead. It could easily have been sent careering out of its former orbit and been captured by the Earth’s gravitational field. However, this is all pure speculation, so perhaps it might be easier to assume, for the moment, that Mars is in its correct and rightful place, and that there must be some odd, physical reason why it has remained so small, whilst the Earth (and Venus) have both undergone global tectonic expansion (as proposed by Carey and Maxlow). So let us, at least for the presentation of this hypothesis, leave the arrangement of the planets as we now find them.

The Births of Earth, Venus and MercuryIn due course the blob of matter that was to become Earth was flung into a

close orbit by the rapidly-swirling still-molten Sun, followed in the fullness of time by the planet Venus, which was so similar in size and mass that it and the Earth could almost have been regarded as twin-sister planets. Then finally, after a slightly longer pause, tiny Mercury was cast off into space. To all intents and purposes, Mercury was essentially “the runt of the litter”! Each time a new proto-planet was loosed from the Sun’s equator, its predecessors moved out a little further from their parent and their orbits widened accordingly. At first these orbits were close together, a mere few tens of thousand of miles separating them. But as they were pushed farther out by the advent of their younger siblings, their orbits began to spread further apart. Each newborn protoplanet seeming to assert a physical demand for its own space.

This was due no doubt to the fact that each body, being of the same polarity, was gravitationally repelled by the next. Even though these rotating blobs had not yet formed into discrete spheres, various strange physical laws had already come into play, laws which would not be discovered or defined for perhaps another three or four billion years, until Man finally came upon the scene. Although, even today, with all

14

his seemingly vast technical knowledge of science and cosmology, I doubt that Man has yet discovered even a tenth of the wonderful rules which govern the universe.

In our boundless conceit and arrogance, we make a great pretence of knowing the answers to so many of the mysteries of the cosmos, but largely these are merely theoretical. What few cosmic laws we do understand are only the most rudimentary. Thus we try to “back-engineer” the cosmos, using what simple tools we can grasp, in order to discover the Designer’s original plan. True, we have successfully applied what little we’ve discovered to wonderful effect, such as overcoming our earthly restrictions and launching spacecraft to other worlds. But none can yet claim to even begin to fathom the Mind of that great Intellect who designed and created this universe we live in. The same Intellect who set it all in motion, complete with a set of unbreakable automatic commands which control its entire operation.

The Fate of The SunI believe that, soon after the birth of Mercury, the Sun began to undergo its

great metamorphosis, as it changed from a great ball of thickening molten matter into a thermonuclear fusion-furnace, fuelled by its own superabundant supply of hydrogen. There are probably a dozen ways in which this might have come to get started - but start it did. And so it continues reacting and blazing to this day, and will continue to do so into the distant future, till its store of hydrogen finally peters out.

Then, like a nearly-consumed bonfire, it will collapse in upon itself and burst forth ferociously again as a huge red giant in one final, almighty spherical explosion of blazing solar plasma hundreds of times its former diameter. But the Sun’s last blaze of glory, in which its planets - if they’re still there - will be totally consumed, will last for only a brief period before its last outer layers are burned away. Then its shrunken core will shrivel into a white dwarf, and, as it finally cools, into a small blackened ball of frozen cinders. A wandering invisible “has-been” and a dangerous cosmic traffic-hazard in the lonely inky blackness of outer space. Forgive me if I repeat myself, but I simply can’t help thinking again: “SicTransit Gloria Mundi!”

But I see that we are getting well ahead of ourselves here, so I must return to our fledgling planets – in any of the three speculated scenarios I’ve depicted - as they begin their enormously long lives. Lives in which they will be bound, like grist-mill oxen, by leashes of gravitation to plod along in wearying circuitous journeys around the Sun, following their ordained, individual orbits.

It seems to me that, as each new protoplanetary blob of matter was centrifuged off the sun’s equator, the one preceding it had to gradually move further out into an ever-increasingly distant orbit in order to make room for the newcomer. This action, for which I have yet to find a name, (postcession?), gradually pushed each of the planets in turn into a certain zone of temperature balance. There the fervent heat of the sun was more or less countered by the zero cold of outer space, to such an extent as to permit the protoplanet to begin cooling down. This it did, sufficiently for the surface crust to become solid, and some of its ejected atmospheric gases – especially water vapor – to begin condensing into a liquid form. This fell (probably mixed with other more noxious gases like sulfur dioxide) as rain, which at first never reached the still hot surface before being vaporized again.

15

However as time wore on and the surface rocks cooled down further, it would eventually have actually fallen upon them, cooling them even further still. This would allow the “rain” solution to be separated into water and its other component chemical solids. However, it must be borne in mind that each planet, as its orbit passed through this region of space, would have produced a thick cloak of cloud-layers which would cause a vast Greenhouse Effect” such as we now see on Venus. Venus will have to travel much further towards this “Critical Region” before its dense mass of cloud-cover begins to dissipate by cooling and allows the Sun’s radiation to penetrate and actually begin working upon both atmosphere and surface.

For example. Looking inward from the Earth today, we see our immediate inner neighbour, Venus, still deeply covered by just such a mephitic layering of clouds. This signifies that its surface is still too hot for the falling “rain” to reach it before being re-vaporized. But at least we know that the planet itself is spinning inside its dense cocoon of clouds. Beyond Venus, however, and much closer to the sun, we see tiny Mercury. Here is a planet that, for some reason, has lost its spin. (Perhaps the iron gravitational grip of the sun at so short a range, is preventing it from doing so.) It does not yet have any real atmosphere either, although a very attenuated and whispy one has recently been detected.

However, it remains to be seen what will happen to Mercury as it spirals steadily further away from the ageing Sun and the sun’s radiant heat also begins to wane. Who knows what results these changes might effect upon Mercury? Many scientists claim that Mercury is dead, and can never be a home to life. Others say that life could possibly develop around its “terminator” – that region of its surface which lies between its day and night sides and widens as Mercury oscillates slightly from side to side.. I personally feel that many amazing changes could still occur on Mercury, before it spirals beyond the Critical Region!

So what is this mysterious “Critical Region”? What does it signify, and what happens when a planet enters it? And how can a planet enter it, anyhow? Surely they are all travelling along predetermined, fixed orbits, at permanently-set distances from the Sun?

The Life ZoneI believe, as do many other laymen and scientists, that this “critical region”is

a very real band of space which begins at approximately .75 AU from the Sun and extends outwards to approximately 1.75 AU. Orthodox science appears to have recently begun to acknowledge the existence of such a Life Zone, which they call the “Habitable Zone” or HZ. However, before I can discuss that, I must first explain another phenomenon. This is a fact that you might have already figured out from the heading of this article – namely that the planets are actually not travelling along permanently-fixed orbital “tramlines” in space – but are, in fact, all spiralling outwards away from the Sun!

The reason for this - at least in my opinion - is that, since the Sun is feeding upon its own hydrogen content (which is of course finite in quantity), it must be gradually consuming its own mass. This is then being radiating away into space as radiant heat energy. Thus, if the mass of the sun is constantly being depleted, so must its gravitational hold upon the planets that orbit around it. At the same time, our own Earth, and therefore the other planets are continuing to grow in two ways.

16

One way is by global tectonic expansion, which is increasing their sizes and therefore their masses. (Global tectonics is the engine which is driving all the Earth’s continentental landmasses apart by spreading the ocean floors, and must apply, in one way or another, to all planets with crustal surfaces that have split up into tectonic plates. Check global expansion websites for more on this subject.) The other way that all planets grow is by the continuous accretion of cosmic dust particles and the collision of meteorites. Even those meteorites that burn up in the atmosphere must eventually descend to the surface, even if only as meteoric dust and particles. This is still “accretion” and will continue unabated throughout the planet’s life.

Current Occupants of the Life ZoneI believe that it should now be growing clear to my readers that such a region

as the “Habitable Zone” must have existed ever since the Sun first became a vast atomic furnace; since the planets assumed their current global shapes and began to solidify. The Earth is still quite well situated inside this zone, as also, but to a much lesser degree, is Mars. In my view, the planet Venus has yet to enter this region, as she is currently at only .72 AU from the Sun, which leaves her with still .03 AU to travel outward upon her spiralling orbit, before entering the Life Zone.

I recently read a Russian scientific paper on the Solar System that said this “outward-spiralling” effect has thus far carried the Earth out to 93 million miles from the Sun over a period of 4.5 billion years, so Earth’s mean orbital radius, plus those of the other planets, must be increasing at a tad over 48 miles per year. (Which also means that the AU is also increasing in length as each year passes!)

Previous OccupantsThe implication or conclusion which may be drawn from the foregoing is that,

not only did all the outer planets also pass through this same “Life Zone” in their turn, but that the Zone itself has not always been as close to the Sun as it is today. It seems self-evident that the Sun has lost a very considerable amount of its heat and its mass since the birth of the planets. So, whichever of these scenarios we choose, we must acknowledge that, in its youth, the Sun must have put forth much more heat and gravitation over a vastly greater distance than it does today.

Thus we find the curious situation of the “Life Zone” steadily shifting toward the Sun whilst its planets are moving away from it! This means that Venus may not take quite as long to reach the Habitable Zone as we might imagine. The Zone itself may well be approaching Venus faster than she would approach it through orbital-widening! And the same might be true for barren little Mercury in some tens of thousands of years hence. It would be interesting indeed if only we were able to return then and see what fantastic changes might have transpired upon both planets!

However, if we look in the opposite direction, at Mars and the four massive gas-giants, we find other amazing thoughts springing to mind. As far as Mars is concerned, there remains the viable possibility that it might still be retrievable as a liveable planet, even though it is approaching the outer edge of this “Habitable Zone” (or HZ). Even if there is little likelihood of Man recreating an entirely Earth-like environment upon its outer surface, he can still work beneath its harsh outer shell and create a tenable and comfortable underground world within the planet!

17

However, as an advocate of the Hollow Planets theory, I still anticipate that our Arenaut explorers might be astounded to find that life is already thriving inside Mars. (Just as I believe it is within our own Earth!) I, along with many thousands of other HE and Mars enthusiasts, look forward to 2005 –2010, when scientists from Earth are able to study Mars at its ground-level, in person. Hopefully they’ll soon begin to reveal its deeply-concealed inner secrets! I trust that I’ll still be alive then, and expect to see our long-cherished beliefs about Mars completely vindicated!

I often wonder, given the widespread belief today that an Inner Earth does exist under our feet, why no major effort has ever been made to seek it? Whether it be an enormous concavity, thronging with life - familiar and perhaps unfamiliar forms in all their amazing variety. Or whether it might instead comprise many inter-connected cavernous city-worlds still inhabited by our progenitors, who’ve kept watch over us, and are helping us rediscover our technological and psychical heritage!

Surely, considering Man’s insatiable thirst for adventure and knowledge – as evinced by our space-research programs – some serious consideration should be given to finding out what lies beneath our feet on our own planet? Why is Science so tunnel-visioned about the interior of the Earth as to accept, without any actual proof, the old fable that it contains a liquified nickel-iron core surrounded by a mantle of white-hot magma? It is only a tentative theory, after all! Who knows what marvellous rewards might await the efforts of that nation or corporation which is bold and enterprising enough to allocate funding for such an inner-space project? Even the mineral prospects alone should be sufficient justification!

Costwise, they would certainly have infinitely less to lose than the outrageously enormous funds that America and Russia have already frittered away on many useless space undertakings over the past few decades! But in such a case as I’ve suggested above, the financial outlay would be almost negligible compared to what has been expended upon often “blind-alley” outer-space research! However, we must wait and see who will be the first to wake up to all the great potentialities of such an undertaking. The minerals, the prestige and acclaim –especially in the event of locating such a hidden civilization - the technology, and, for the very greedy and imperial, perhaps, the chance to claim additional sovereign territory!

Somehow, I don’t think we might have so terribly long to wait!

The Gas-giantsBetween Mars and the first of the great gas-giant planets, Jupiter, we find the

asteroid belt – or one of them, as there are apparently several. It has long been my own earnest belief, in which I now find myself supported by people like Tom Van Flandern and Don Patten, that these gigantic boulders and planetoids are fragments of a two-or-three-times-Earth-size planet which once rolled around its orbit between Earth and Jupiter. Note that I didn’t say “between Mars and Jupiter”. This is simply because I suspect that Mars, like our own oversized Moon, might once have been satellites of this first and biggest of all the terrestrial planets. (See also my remarks about this on page 14 of this article.)

However, this is all purely hypothetical, so I will move on to the gas-giants themselves. Whilst they are all different in many ways, they all share certain aspects and features in common. They are all enormous compared to Earth, and Jupiter is the largest of them all. It is eleven times Earth’s diameter and has a mass nearly 318

18

times greater. Yet its gravity is only 2.5 times that of Earth! Jupiter has 16 known moons, which vary in size from the largest, Ganymede, 3278 miles in diameter (only a thousand miles less than Mars in diameter, but far more massive) down to tiny Leda (7 miles) and these are all divided into four groups of four. It’s believed to have a rocky core, perhaps 2000 miles in diameter, which is surrounded by a layer of water/ammonia ice, a very thick layer of liquid metallic hydrogen, and pure liquid hydrogen. These, in turn, are surrounded by a deep atmosphere comprised of a band of water-vapor and droplets, another of ice crystals, a band of ammonia-vapor, then one of ammonia droplets and finally an outer one of frozen ammonia crystals. Since we’re all familiar with Jupiter’s mysterious “Great Red Spot”, I won’t discuss it here! Jupiter, by the way, also has a very thin ring-system of carbonaceous matter.

(I’ve taken the trouble to describe Jupiter’s composition in some detail, since the other three are basically similar in their general make-up. I should point out, incidentally, that these layers and their constituents were closely analyzed and identified by spectroscopic instruments aboard the Voyager spacecraft during their famous exploratory voyages outward through the Solar System in 1979 and 1989.)

After Jupiter, comes Saturn, somewhat smaller that Jupiter, but with a magnificent ring-system surrounding its equatorial belt. This is split into six bands and are composed of silca rock fragments, iron oxide particles, and particles of ice. They are thought to be the remnants of a large moon that approached Saturn too closely. In accordance with Edward Roche’s theory on close-approach limits for moons (or other small bodies) to their parent-planets, was shattered by Saturn’s tremendous gravity into billions of tiny fragments. Saturn is also blessed with a family of no less than twenty moons, of which the largest is Titan, 3200 miles in diameter. Saturn is over nine times larger than Earth, and its mass is 95 times greater. As noted previously, it has much the same fundamental constituents as Jupiter, except that it has no water vapor.

From Saturn, we go on to Uranus, which is around four and a half times Earth’s diameter but is only 14.6 times its mass. Uranus also has a ring-system composed of no less than 13 rings, and again appear to be the remains of a moon that approached too closely. However, it isn’t anything like as spectacular as Saturn’s. Uranus also has twenty satellite moons, the largest being Titania, at 1610 miles diameter. The principal strange feature of Uranus is that its polar axis is horizontal instead of vertical, so the planet appears to be lying on its side, with its North Pole pointing toward the distant Sun! It looks as if it has somehow been tilted by 98 degrees!

Also, it rotates in a retrograde direction. This might mean that, instead of simple toppling over on on its side, axially speaking, Uranus may have done a three-quarter topple of 278 degrees! This would produce the same retrograde spin effect. In other words, its North Pole is now pointing away from and not toward the Sun! I should mention that Venus and Pluto also rotate in a retrograde direction to that of the the Sun! this could only mean that they, too, have experienced 180-degree topples at some stage of their careers. Some scientists seem to see this as being indicative of these retrograde-planets having been “captured” by the Sun, and thus are not real members of its family. But, it now appears to be generally accepted that our own Earth has probably toppled on its axis several times already in its long history, so I guess we can safely discount this solar “Kidnapping” theory!

19

Neptune is the last of these Jovian gas-giants, and little was really known about it until the Voyager II fly-by in 1989. But now we can say that it is 3.8 times Earth diameter, has a mass seventeen times that of the Earth, and that, like Saturn and Uranus, it has a mean surface temerature of around -300 to -350 degrees F. It’s worth noting that of all the four Jovian giants, only Jupiter itself shows any kind of real inner heat at 26,637 degrees F! (Our Sun itself is around 11 million degrees F at its surface! But Jupiter is in many respects equivalent to a mini-sun when compared to its three giant but frosty companions. Especially toward its interesting satellites!)

Neptune is also marked with a large blemish similar to the “Great Red Spot” of Jupiter, except that Neptune’s is a “Great Dark (blue) Spot”! Since both of these “Spots” have similar characteristics, they are probably caused by enormous storm centers. However, Neptune goes one better than Jupiter in this regard, since it also has a “Lesser Dark Spot”, which has a permanent bank of cloud covering its center.Neptune also possesses eight satellites, the largest being Triton, which is 1680 miles in diameter. It is still not known whether Neptune has a rocky core of any notable size, although it would be hard to imagine it to be entirely a gaseous orb. All that can be said is that its mean temperature in general is around -350 degrees F, and that it has a mass just under twice that of the Earth.

Now we finally come to tiny Pluto, which is in many respects almost the twin of Mercury, except that they are at opposite extremes of the Solar System. Pluto has a diameter of 1454 miles, and a mass less than one-tenth that of the Earth, and has no detectable atmosphere. (although a very faint hint of one is thought to have been discovered recently.) Instead it is generally believed to be covered with a coating of solid methane ice. Pluto, although now itself considered to be an escaped moon of Neptune, has a small satellite, which circles around it at a distance of 12,000 miles

This is Charon, a tiny moon of only around 750 miles diameter, which rotates both around Pluto and its own axis in 6.3 Earth days. Thus it always presents the same face toward the same region of Pluto’s surface. This is unlike our own Moon, which orbits Earth in the opposite direction to Earth’s rotation, so can thus be seen from all parts of the earth. However, it is doubtful if a viewer on either planet could see the other, since they are both immersed in almost total darkness. Charon’s mean surface temperature is roughly minus 380 degrees F. It, too, is thought to be an escapee from Neptune, quite probably at the same time as Pluto, and through the same incident.

It’s often been mooted that still other planets lie out beyond Pluto’s orbit, but if they do, they were not picked up by the detectors on the Voyager spacecraft. So it’s fairly safe to assume that this completes our quick trip across the Solar System!

A Note to Hollow Earthers!As far as hollow planets are concerned, I rather tend to believe that if they

exist beyond the terrestrial planets, they would be extremely unlikely to occur beyond the orbit of Jupiter*, otherwise any occupants or inhabitants of their cores, or even the larger moons of the last three gas-giants would long ago have been frozen solid! That is, if, in fact, their cores are actually hollow! As a subscriber to the Hollow Earth idea myself, I can’t imagine how any lifeform (as we understand life) could survive in such tremendously cold and extremely high-pressured environs as they appear to offer! Even their satellites (except two of Jupiter’s) appear inimical to life.

(*NB. For an elaboration on this matter of life on Planet V and the gas-giants, see Appendix B).

20

Stop-Press Extra!

An Alternative Addition to the Three Preceding Concepts!

Speculation #4An Overlooked Concept

This additional option to the three I’ve already offered, is one which occurred to me after I had read and re-read my the draft of this article. I felt that perhaps there was still something fairly obvious “staring me right in the face” in all that I had researched and discussed. It was the idea that it might conceivably be possible that all the planets began as gas-planets, much the same, in most respects, as the four gas-giants which are situated farthest from the Sun.

At first I wondered if there was something else, apart from them all being satellites of the same star, which they shared in common. After some rather heavy, lip-tugging cogitation, it occurred to me that there was something more which they all shared, that seemed to incorporate a sense of dimensional progression.

Starting from the outermost planet, Pluto, and heading sunward to the innermost terrestrial planet, Mercury, an odd fact seemed to emerge. If we look at the central rocky cores of them all and ignore the thickness or thinness of their atmospheres, they appear to progressively enlarge in size up to Jupiter, which has the largest inner rocky core. Then, (assuming there once was a big terrestrial planet where the asteroids now orbit) after Jupiter, the rocky spheres appear to taper right down again to Mercury, which is about twice the size of Pluto. In general effect, what we would see in this view, is a kind of cigar-shaped formation of planets!

The “Encounter” TheoryThis, as I recall from my youth, reminds me of a suggested genesis for the

planets proposed by Sir James Jeans and Harold Jeffreys. It was one of several “Encounter” theories which arose early in the 20th century as revisions of the old theories of French physicist, Georges Buffon (1707-1788), and the Americans, Thomas Chamberlin (1843-1928) and Forest Moulton (1872 –1952).

In it, the infant Sun, then still an incandescent ball of cosmic matter, experienced an extremely close shave when it narrowly missed collision with a rogue star or meteor. The intruder passed by so closely that it drew out a long curved, cigar-shaped filament of incandescent cosmic matter from the Sun.

Although it remaining connected to the rotating Sun by gravitation, this vast extrusion of matter then continued to whirl around the rotating Sun like a curiously-shaped, protruding “arm”. But as it began to lag behind the spinning sun, it rapidly became a curved, trailing “tail”, rather like one limb of a rotating nebula, and as it did so, it gradually condensed into a string of discrete globules of white-hot matter, each more or less of a size relative to its original location in the cigar-like filament.

21

Due to the different masses of the various planets, and their correspondingly different orbital speeds, the planets soon became widely separated from their original orderly “In Line Abreast” formation, with result that the solar system became the scattered, “willy-nilly” disposition of planets along their respective orbits that we often see depicted today in illustrated astronomy books.

Atmospheric DevelopmentAs the aeons passed, and the planets began to form red-hot but solidifying

crusts of rock, those nearest the Sun were inhibited by its fervent heat from cooling quickly and from forming dense atmospheres of the lighter gases, such as hydrogen, helium and methane. The molecules of these were quickly agitated to escape-velocity and boiled off into space by the intense solar heat. Venus was one of the few that managed to develop a thick atmosphere, since it was swathed in carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide. Earth also developed, and managed to retain, a good atmosphere of nitrogen, oxygen and carbon dioxide.

Gas-giant FormationBut those further out, which received only a meagre amount of the Sun’s

radiance, were exposed to the deep cold of outer space. And whilst they were initially volcanically active, they began to cool down rapidly and developed deep atmospheres of those emitted gases which were best suited to such extreme coldness. Refrigerant gases such as ammonia and methane, and other hydrocarbon gases were vented in great volume and burgeoned forth to form thick layers, as liquids, crystals and vapors. Since there was not sufficient internal or solar heat to boil them off into space, they continued to swell the planets’ atmospheres into gigantic spheres of water, ammonia and hydrocarbon vapors, acetylene, helium and hydrogen gas. Thus the great gas-giants were born.

The Sun, meanwhile, had by now become a thermonuclear fusion furnace and had begun to emit great bursts of blazing solar wind upon the inner planets, burning off their atmospheric hydrogen and methane. However, being so far from the Sun, the outer Jovian planets were able to retain their dense atmospheres intact, as we see them to this day!

ConclusionI believe that, having now made this particular point concerning the Jovian

gas-giant atmospheres, and described this curiously interesting theory of Jeans’ and Jeffreys (which was the first one I ever really subscribed to, and which I still find an interesting concept to contemplate, since it helps to explain the gas-giants better than any of the others), I guess that I should now leave this final speculation at this point – at least for the present, anyhow! (I might just possibly revive it again, later!)

I also feel that all the necessary data regarding statistical details of the Solar System, and so forth, has already been furnished in the previous speculations, and so I shall show a little mercy and spare the patient reader from any further rambling repetition of them!

The End © Gerry Forster 2001

22

Appendix A Bode’s Law of Planetary Spacing

More correctly known in scientific circles as the Titius-Bode Law, this is a fairly approximate rule which was first indicated in1766 by Johann Daniel Titius, and was later elaborated upon as a formal mathematical statement in 1778 by Johann Elert Bode, a German astronomer. The law expresses the proportionate distances of the various planets of our solar system from the Sun. It also led to Bode’s prediction of the possible existence of a planet between Mars and Jupiter where the Asteroid Belt currently lies. The actual law itself is basically founded upon a mathematical ordering of numbers in a progressive series which Bode related to the mean distances of the planets from the sun.

This progressive series is indicated by the simple sequence of numbers given below:

0 3 6 12 24 48 96 192 384

(Note that each number’s value (except the first two) is twice that of its predecessor)

Now we must add 4 to each of the nine numbers. This leaves us with the following:

4 7 10 16 28 52 100 196 388

Next, we have to divide each of the last sequence of numbers by 10, which gives us:

0.4 0.7 1.0 1.6 2.8 5.2 10.0 19.6 38.8

This sequence now very closely equates the mean distances of planets from the sun!

Solar Planet Actual Distance A.Us. Bode’s Prediction Mercury 0.39 0.4 Venus 0.72 0.7 Earth 1.00 1.0 Mars 1.52 1.6 Astrida* 3.00* 2.8 Jupiter 5.20 5.2 Saturn 9.54 10.0 Uranus 19.19 19.6

NB. It’s interesting to note that, while Bode made such accurate predictions regarding these planetary positions, he doesn’t appear to have attempted to predict, or make any

speculations concerning their anticipated sizes!

(*Speculative only. See main text.)

One AU (Astronomical Unit) = 93 million miles .The distance from Earth’s center to Sun’s center)

23

Appendix BLife on Jupiter’s Moons and Planet V

(Referred to on page 20 of main text of this article)

Rather than digress any further from my subject at that particular point in my essay, I thought it might be better to discuss the possibilities of life ever having been present upon the two most likely canditates among Jupiter’s satellites - Europa and Ganymede, and upon the vanished “Planet V”, more fully in a separate Appendix, rather than prolong the conclusion of the main text.

Living On The Moons Of JupiterI cannot even begin to conceive what form of life could ever live inside the

enormously highly-pressurized core of the parent planet itself! The core, is believed to be surrounded by a layer of water-ice 4,500 miles thick! However, that isn’t to say some form of life may probably have developed in such an inimical environment. Even on our own planet, there are seemingly impossible creatures living in the deep abyssal ocean trenches, which exist under conditions of utterly crushing pressure, extreme cold, and total darkness! So we shouldn’t be in too great a hurry to discount the possibility of life in almost any sort of alien environment imaginable. However, for the purposes of this exercise, I feel that if we are looking for lifeforms compatible with most of those found on Earth, we might do better to not to consider Jupiter itself, but rather its moons.

As we’ve noted earlier, Jupiter possesses sixteen moons ranging in diameter from 5-10 miles up to 3,278 miles! The smallest one being tiny Leda, and the largest mighty Ganymede, which is not only Jupiter’s, but the entire Solar System’s biggest satellite. The planet Mars is only 934 miles larger in diameter than Ganymede, whilst the planet Mercury is 246 miles less in diameter! So Ganymede is really a fully qualified planet in this respect!

Likely Candidates For LifeBut out of Jupiter’s sixteen moons, it seems that there are only two that can

really be considered as possible homes for life as we understand it. These are Ganymede and Europa. According to the data derived from the Voyager “fly-by” analysis in 1979, the crust of Ganymede appears to be composed of silica rock overlaid with a 60 miles thick carapace of water-ice. Visually, however, it s surface is marked by mountainous terrain and darkish grooved and wrinkled plains, not to mention a large number of fairly small impact craters which appear to be now filled with ice. It is believed that this was formed through the splashing-effect of impacting meteors upon an underlying layer of water, flinging it over into the craters, where it has since become frozen solid.

The presence of water is always a very promising sign in our search for life, and Ganymede seems to have a superabundance of it, albeit, presently in frozen form at the surface. Another promising lead is the fact that Ganymede’s rock surface exhibits the presence of tectonic plates, much like those of Earth. This signifies that the planet was once tectonically active, and the water ice is indicative of it having once possessed an atmosphere containing water-vapor and oxygen. The satellite,

24

Callisto, also shows some signs of water ice, but here there is no evidence of tectonic activity, so this implies no ejection of atmospheric gases, without which life is a forlorn hope. Certainly on the surface, at any rate.

However, Europa - which has a diameter of 1942 miles - presents as a smooth ball of water-ice. It resembles nothing so much as a frozen water-planet, and data so far received indicates that it is a silica-rock planet that is covered by an ocean of water some 60+ miles deep. This “world-ocean” in turn is covered by a crust of surface water-ice that is estimated to be possibly 30 to 40 miles thick. But Europa’s apparently smooth icy surface is virtually cobwebed with many long and intersecting dark lines (or “linea”). They are believed to be deep cracks that have occurred in the past and been frozen over again.

These, together with the “flexus” – curved and scalloped ice-ridges, which are light-colored and evenly distributed over the surface, appear to be indicative of some form of subsurface periodical defrosting activity – most probably of tectonic origin. The general indications for Europa, then, from a life-sustaining point of view, are quite promising. Given a history of tectonic activity, and thus warmth, and a deepish liquid-water ocean beneath the fissure-crazed ice-crust, it is feasible to believe that some forms of aquatic life could very well be extant on the satellite.

Other unusual features on Europa include the “macula”, or dark spots, that pock the ice here and there, as well as three rather large and distinct impact-craters. The impact-craters range between 10 to 16 miles diameter. There is no reason to assume that the macula (which may be small meteorite craters) or the larger, obvious impact-craters are responsible for the cracks as they are often separate from them.

Other Possibilities?Saturn also has a large family (20 in all!) of which the largest is Titan, only

around 70 - 80 miles less in diameter than Jupiter’s Ganymede. However, despite the fact that it has an atmosphere rich in nitrogen as well as detectable water vapor,, like that of Earth, Titan’s other constituents are mainly noxious hydrocarbon gases, of which methane is the most dominant, and the atmospheric temperature is accordingly very cold. However, some scientists believe that Titan could be a favorable site for the development of life. But this could only happen if its parent planet, Saturn, were to begin heating up - as is expected might eventually occur with Jupiter.

There is a new theory gaining some currency that large gas-giant planets - such as Jupiter - can transform themselves into stars, given the right circumstances. If this is true, then it would mean that Jupiter and its satellites could perhaps eventually form their very own separate solar system! One that could take the place of the present Sun-centred one! Possibly with Europa becoming a true water-world - such as the Earth itself might once have been - before the emergence of the rocky crust from beneath its smooth watery surface – and which it still largely is!

It’s well worth reminding ourselves occasionally, especially when considering such things as the foregoing, that four-fifths of the Earth’s entire surface is still covered by an enormous world-ocean of water! However, all this is probably going far into the realms of extreme speculation. Perhaps it would be best if we just

25

kept our thoughts focussed upon the Solar System as it presently appears - and let it simply rest at that!

Coming Live from Planet Five!As for Dr.Tom Van Flandern’s popular concept of “Planet V” – the missing

fifth planet, which is also identifiable with my own proposed giant planet “Astrida”, as predicted by the curiously accurate Titius-Bode Law. I have already made some allusions to this (in my view, at least) very real planet, elsewhere in my articles.

I am personally quite convinced that there was once a largish planet orbiting either in the orbit now occupied by Mars, or in between it and that of the main Asteroid Belt. It’s my own opinion (as I stated back on page 14 of this essay), that this might have been the “missing-link” between the terrestrial planets and the gas-giants, and that it possessed the basic qualities of both types. In other words, it was a hybrid between Jupiter and the Earth! I know that may sound like a pretty daft comparison, but I firmly believe that somewhere in the development of the planetary chain of the Solar System such a “cross-breed” must have occurred.

This is especially true if one favors the “Close Encounter” theory which I outlined earlier. I won’t get back into making another argument again about its merits or demerits compared with that of the “Nebular” hypothesis at this time. I think I’ve already covered that fairly adequately in my “Speculation #2”. But it does make a lot more sense to me, both from a formative and an orbital point of view, than the “coalescing clusters of dust in a disc”-idea. To my mind, it is a far simpler and much more direct method of planetary formation, and I think I could even apply “Occam’s Razor” with quite a telling effect in its support!

However, here I want to consider instead the possibility that “Planet V” – “Astrida” could have been a habitable world. I fully realize the implications that the extra size – two or three times that of Earth – might infer, insofar as mass and gravity are concerned. But, as readers of my “Martian Hypothesis” may recall, in the fictional interlude of that essay, I proposed that its lifeforms could have been smaller and much more squat - certainly on its outer surface, at any rate!

However, if one subscribes to the possibility of a inhabitable interior world

within that same planet, one will realize that, not only would the atmosphere quite likely be much thinner, but that the gravitational pull of its hollow crust would also be considerably less! The implication of this is that it wouldn’t be beyond the bounds of likelihood that creatures of almost, if not the same size and stature as those currently found on Earth could have developed within the gentler gravity and lighter atmospheric environment of its inner shell! I will not take the time here to weave an imaginary scenario of the world with “Planet V”–“Astrida”, but I do place the concept before you for thoughtful consideration.

Let us also consider that both Tom Van Flandern* and myself appear to be in agreement that if such a planet did exist, it is feasible that Mars (and our Moon, too) could well have been among its moons! After the parent planet’s explosion (from whatever cause), both would have sustained considerable damage and been blown out of their satellite orbits, along with any other satellites the big planet may have had. It is my view that any proposed occupants of the planet’s interior might have been

26

technologically capable of not only predicting the coming catastrophe but of escaping, via its many portals, in spacecraft of some advanced kind.

They might even have already been passing in and out of their inner world on interplanetary missions, for millennia before their world was destroyed. For all we know, they could have even have already colonized Mars, the Moon, and even the Earth! As I have mentioned elsewhere on several occasions, it would seem far more likely that they would have opted to colonize the interiors of those planets, than their outer crusts. Let us not overlook the likelihood that at such a remote point in time, the Sun’s heat and emissions of harmful radiations would have been far more powerful and dangerous than they are today.

Of course, all this is very highly speculative, since we have no real evidence to support such an hypothesis, beyond the curious anomalies of the present physically ruinous conditions of Mars and our Moon. Not to mention the existence of the Asteriod Belt(s) - for which there is no other really tenable explanation of origin than the totally-shattering explosions of once-existent planets! Whilst I can accept a plurality of such explosions (as Van Flandern proposed by his inclusion of Planet “K”- among others - in his “Exploding Planets Hypothesis”*), I simply cannot buy into the theory that the asteroids are the crudely-stuck-together bits and bobs of a protoplanetary mass (or masses) of cosmic dust, which failed to shape up into a regular discrete rocky sphere (or spheres). I find that Don Pattern** is also of like mind to myself about this “Asteroids from Left-Over Dust” business.

To me that idea is a nonsense. Either the cloud of cosmic matter formed correctly into a sphere, or its particles were gravitationally attracted away to others that had done so. Why would the failed coalescing cloud form into millions of small and wildly-misshapen rocky chunks? It just doesn’t make any logical sense! Even if the asteroids were created in such a manner, would they not have followed all the physical laws and decrees of nature, physics and the universe, and become spheres of whatever size? Why! The pebbles in a creek or on the seashore tend follow this general universal decree, with the passage of time, even if only by sheer friction against one another! However, I think I have made my point sufficiently here, for the purposes of this article, but I would suggest that if the reader hasn’t already done so, he or she may find it expounded a little clearer in a couple of my other articles – such as “The Martian Hypothesis” and “Is Our Earth Really Hollow?”. So I hope that these will lend a little extra support to some of my contentions mentioned here.

* In closing, allow me to recommend that the reader also checks out Tom Van Flandern’s excellent “Exploding Planets Hypothesis” for further explanation of the origin of the asteroids and the past existence of solar system planets which met with untimely ends from whatever caused then to explode! I must also make it clear that Dr. Van Flandern is not in any way associated with, nor has he been approached to subscribe to, my other views on such matters as Hollow Planets and my suggested origins for the Solar System! These are entirely my own specific concepts.

**I also recommend the reader to “The Scars of Mars” by Don W. Patten, for further views on the this asteroidal formation topic, as well as that of the ruination of Mars by an exploding planet.

27

The End © Gerry Forster, 2001

28