THE ORIGIN OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM

Here are some facts you should know:

There have been two main views regarding the origin of the planets in our solar
system. The first is that another star happened to pass near our sun, and drew
off clouds of gases which then formed themselves into planets. This is the
planetesimal group of theories. Astronomers are well aware of the fact that stars do
not wander around through space, but that is how the theory went..
The other main viewpoint is that a swirling cloud of gas formed itself into our
sun, planets, moons, comets, and asteroids. By 1940, all the various encounter or
planetesimal theories had pretty much been discarded as hopeless, but, beginning in
that decade, under the urging of *von Weizsacker, *Whipple, *Spitzer, *Urey, *Garnow,
*Hoyle, *Kuiper, and others, an attempt has been made to bring astronomers back to
some variation of the nebular (gas cloud) hypothesis. Their efforts have been
surprisingly successful, in spite of the obvious physical principle that gas in outer space
(as well as here on earth) never coagulates; it always spreads outward.
Let us consider some of the major reasons the various theories of the origin of our solar system are
more foolishness than fact.
1 - DISPROVING THE SEVEN THEORIES

DISPROVING THE SEVEN THEORIESThe planets in our solar system are thought to have
evolved into existence in one of seven ways:

(1) NEBULAR HYPOTHESISFor many years the nebular hypothesis was a leading
theory. According to it, the sun and its planets supposedly condensed out of swirling eddies
of cold, dark, interstellar clouds of gas and dust.
But there are serious problems to the concept:
[1] Before any condensation of gas and dust could occur, the nebula would have diffused into
outer space. According to *Gerald P. Kuiper, a leading evolutionary astronomer, before gravitational
attraction would become significant, the particles would have to be as big as the moon.
[2] The theory requires that a complex system of roller-bearing eddies of gas and dust had to
develop, which in turn gradually whirled out into sun and planets and moons. But this is an
impossibility, since such vortices would have to remain perfectly intact during essentially the entire
period of planetary formation. On this point, Kuiper doubted that the vortices could last long enough to
get the condensation building process of the planets underway.
[3] What stopped the entire process? If it were not stopped, the entire mass of material would form
one large bodywithout any planets and moons.

[4] Since the sun has 99.5 percent of the mass in the solar system, and all the planets and moons
only have 0.5 percent of it, what would have kept these small bodies from falling into the main
body?
[5] There is much interstellar material in the vicinity of our sun, but it is not condensing.
[6] Our sun has an extremely small rotational motionthat is, it is turning slowly. This "angular
momentum" is far too small to have evolved from a gas cloud. If our sun came from a gaseous
protogalaxy, its angular momentum would have to have been a billion times as much as it is
now, in order for our planets to be flung out and orbit it as fast as they do. How could it have
lost all of its rotational motion?
(2) FISSION THEORYThe "fission theory" says that our sun burst one day, and all our
planets came from it. Then the moons shot out from each planet, stopped, turned sideways and
began circling the planets they came out of. Our moon is said to have emerged from an explosion in
the Pacific Ocean.
There are several problems to this theory:
[1] While the moon was moving outward from the earth, gravity would have pulverized it into
rings.
[2] Moon rocks are somewhat different in composition than the material on earth.
[3] Immense outward explosions would hurl material straight out into space; they would not
circle and then form carefully balanced orbits.
[4] If thrown off by the earth, the moon should circle our world over the equator, but, instead of
this, it orbits our planet at a tilt of 18-28 to the earth's equator.

(3) CAPTURE THEORYThe "capture theory" says that our planets and moons were
wandering around in space and the planets were captured by the gravity of our sun, and the
moons were captured by the planets.
But there are serious problems here also:
[1] The mathematical probabilities are extremely low. Given the great distances between objects in
space, the likelihood that objects would pass so close to one another is very little. Millions
would have to pass near the sun or planets in order for one to pass closely enough.
[2] We see no planets flying by us today! If it was occurring earlier, it should be happening with
great regularity now. We have enough telescopes in place that we could easily observe such giant
rocks whizzing through our solar system. They would be brilliant as they shot by, and many could
easily be seen with the unaided eye.
[3] If they did pass near enough, gravity would crash into planets and suns, or they would
merely fly past us; they would not pause and begin orbiting within our solar system.
How could the earth, for example, capture the moon? It wouldn't. The moon would just rush on by it.
When our "space-probes"such as the Voyager rocketsare sent to other planets, as they pass
close to them they are thrown outward and accelerated in their onward flight out into distant space.

You may ask, "Why then does an Apollo rocket, after being hurled toward the moon, begin orbiting it?"
Because closely-monitored computerized jets, controlled by telemetry signals from earth, place it into
a carefully predetermined orbit at a certain distance from the moon's surface. Nothing is left to
chance, for scientists know that only failure would result.
[4] By mathematical probabilities, it would take thousands of moons passing near the earth in
order for one to possibly begin circling it. In the process, gravity would have brought many of
them crashing into the earth, destroying both!
These solar system evolution theories appear to be little more than fables packaged in big words.
(4) ACCRETION THEORYThe "accretion, condensation, nebular contraction," or
"dust cloud" theory says that small chunks of material separately formed themselves

into our earth and the moon.

"According to this idea, a dust cloud began to rotate. . When the mass had swept up most of the
material in an eddy, a planet was formed."*M. Bishop, *B. Sutherland, and *P. Lewis, Focus on
Earth Science (1981), p. 470.
It is said that the moon is just a pile of dust, and "just happened" to wander near and begin circling
our world, another "pile of dust." But two huge spheresearth and moonso close to each
other, would fly apart or, being so close to each other, would soon crash. They would not
endlessly circle one another, neither colliding nor separating.
(5) PLANETARY COLLISION THEORYThe "collision theory" of the origin our moon
theorizes that our world is said to have collided with a small planet. The resulting explosion threw
off rocks which formed our orbiting moon.
Again there are problems:
[1] Such a giant impact would totally destroy our planet or melt its crust.
[2] The mathematical probabilities of another large object hurtling near our planetand then striking it
are remotely "possible." But the fantastically slight probabilities that it could hit our planet with
just the right weight, speed, and angle of hit to produce an orbiting of the moon around our
earth, make the whole process an impossibility.
[3] But more: This would have had to happen repeatedlyagain and againfor all the other
moons in our solar system! (At the present time 60 moons in our solar system have been counted;
the 1989 Neptune flyby added 6 more to the total.)
[4] With 60 moons to form, tens of thousands of moons would have to pass by our nine
planets In order for their five dozen moons to begin orbiting them! In the process, thousands
of collisions would have occurred, destroying everything!
[5] If so many near collisions of giant spheres are necessary in order for moons to form, why are not
such near collisions regularly occurring today? Why are not moons regularly passing us now? In
order to agree with the probabilities (mathematical likelihood) that it could occur, several
dozen moons would have to fly through our solar system every day nowand for billions of
years beforehandin order for 60 moons to accidentally start circling our nine planets through close

fly-bys. Of course, that many wandering spheres entering our solar system would cause havocand
the resulting collisions would smash both planets and moons and hurtle the pieces into the sun.
The truth is that the inventors of these harebrained schemes do not consider the involvement and
consequences of their theories before propounding them. Compounding the problem, the public
thinks that doctoral graduates must be very wise. They may be fine people, but no one lives long
enough to become very smart. Forty-five years of active adulthood is hardly enough time for a man to
learn enoughto even begin to recognize that he is actually quite ignorant.

(6) STELLAR

COLLISION THEORYThe "collision theory" of the origin of our

entire solar system suggests that our planets, moons, and sun all spun off from a collision between
stars. As with most of the other theories, the problems here are:
[1] A collision hurls materials outward. The debris would continually travel outward forever.
[2] If any pieces were drawn together by gravity, they would have smashed into each other; they
would not mutually orbit.

(7) GAS

CLOUD THEORYThe "gas cloud theory" of our planets and moons

teaches that gas clouds were captured by our sun, which then mysteriously formed
themselves at a distance into planets and moons.
More problems:
[1] We have already observed that gas does not lump together, any more than air clumps
together into solids.
[2] If these planets and moons did adhere in that manner, they would not orbit one another, nor
would they all together circle the sun.
According to the theory, gas formed into dust grains, and these glued together somehow and built up
into fist-sized chunks. These pieces continued to grow until they became planets and moons. But, as
mentioned in the previous chapter, *Harwit calculated that it would be impossible for the gas and
dust to stick together in outer space, and before any condensation of gas and dust could
occur, it all would separate.
"Planetary accretion, like most other aspects of solar system origin, is imperfectly understood. Once
planetary nuclei (objects some tens of kilometers in dimension, say) had gotten started, it is easy
enough to see how they would grow by [gravitationally] sweeping up smaller particles. But it has
always been difficult to see how the start was made, why dust particles, chondrules, and Ca, Al-rich
inclusions chose to clump together." *J.A. Wood, The Solar System (1979), p. 187.
2 - SEVEN MORE FLAWS

SEVEN MORE FLAWS IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM THEORIES There are several other
weaknesses in these theories of the origin of our solar system. Here are some of them:
(1) They do not explain where stars, planets and moons originated.

(2) They assume that the very precise and complicated orbits in our solar system
came about by chance. Yet that could never happen. Man-made satellites eventually
fall back to earth. All the moons should fall into their respective planets, and the planets
should also fall into the sun.. Yet that could never happen. Man-made satellites
eventually fall back to earth. All the moons should fall into their respective planets, and
the planets should also fall into the sun.
(3) To the extent to which we have studied them, each planet and moon in our solar system has
unique structures and properties. How could each one be different if all of them came from the
sun or a common stellar collision?

How could each one be different if all of them came from the sun or a
common stellar collision? How could each one be different if all of them
came from the sun or a common stellar collision?
(4) None of these theories fit into the laws of physics, as we know them.
(5) Nowhere in the universe is to be found evidence of a building process, such as is depicted
in these fanciful theories
(4) None of these theories fit into the laws of physics, as we know them.
(5) Nowhere in the universe is to be found evidence of a building process, such as is depicted
in these fanciful theories
(4) None of these theories fit into the laws of physics, as we know them.

(5) Nowhere in the universe is to be found evidence of a building process, such as is

depicted in these fanciful theories. Within the time span of mankind no such
evolutionary changes as those taught by astronomical theorists has occurred. How can
we assume they take place! This imaginative thinking is not science, but fiction writing.
(6) Evolutionary theorists cannot come up with a rational explanation of the intricate balancings and
orbital motions of moons and planets in our solar system! As mentioned earlier, Everything
should crash together or fly apart.
*Sir Harold Jeffreys, one of the world's leading geophysicists, after carefully examining the evidence
for each of the various theories of how our solar system evolved into existence, summarized the
situation in this way:
"To sum up, I think that all suggested accounts of the [evolutionary] origin of the Solar System are
subject to serious objections. The conclusion in the present state of the subject would be that the
system cannot exist." *Harold Jeffreys, The Earth*: Its Origin, History, and Physical Constitution
(1970), p. 359.
Since Jeffreys made that analysis, * NASA has poured millions upon millions of dollars into a gigantic
effort to find evidence on the moon and other planets for evolution. But, to date, all the evidence
discovered has been in favor of creation, not evolution. In one admissive statement, NASA said this
about the theories and the evidence:

"It is important to be aware that there is no one theory for the origin and subsequent evolution of the
Solar System that is generally accepted. All theories represent models which fit some of the facts
observed today, but not all." *Mars and Earth, U. S. Government Printing Office, NF-61 (August
1975), p. 1.
(There is a keen excitement to spend billions of dollars on a journey to Mars. The money could be
better spent developing ways to desalinate seawater, design low-cost solar heating cells for heating
and electricity, improve crop yield, or any number of other things that would help people down here. A
primary objective of the trip is to try to find life on that ruddy planet. It has been hoped that this
would provide evidence elsewhere of biologic evolution, since there is none on our own
planet!
"If it turns out that there is life there as well, then, I would say, it would convince large numbers of
people that the origins of life exist. " *Carl Sagan, "Life on Mars: What Could It Mean?" in Science
News, June 5, 12, 1976, pp. 378-379.
(See appendix to chapter 9 [Primitive Environment] for a list of 15 multi-million-dollar space satellite
research projects for the purpose of finding life in outer space.)
(7) Hydrogen gas never "gravitates" into solidsanywhere, either on the earth or in outer space.
Scientists now know that neither gas nor dust particles can push themselves into small or large
solids. There is no known mechanism by which small particles of gas could stick

together to build up chunks big enough, which would finally attract each other
gravitationally, and form planets. There is no known mechanism by which dust particles
in outer space could do it either.
"The idea that the sun could be formed by the gravitational collapse of a cloud of gas involves many
theoretical difficulties. A gas cloud of the type presently observed out in space, unless it were a
number of times greater in mass than the sun, would tend to expand rather than contract . .
Furthermore, a cloud could not contract unless there were some way in which much of the resulting
heat could be radiated out of the cloud. But it is not yet firmly established that a process exists that
could get this heat out of the cloud." R.E. Kofahl and KL. Segraves, Creation Explanation (1975),
p. 142.

Theory
Every solar system formation theory has to explain some facts we know about our
solar system. Listed below are some of the major observations.
1.

More than 99 percent of the mass of the entire solar system, consisting of
the Sun, planets, moons, meteors, asteroids, comets etc. is contained inside
the Sun. However, the Sun only contains about 0.5 percent of the angular
momentum.
2. The presence of huge amounts of light metals on Earth like beryllium, boron,
etc., points out that this matter could not have come from the core of an
exploded star.
3. The solar system is extremely flat, i.e the orbits of most planets lie in the
same plane. However, the orbits of Mercury and Pluto (not a planet
anymore) deviate from this plane considerably.
4. There is a clear demarcation between the terrestrial and giant planets.
5. The Sun's rotation axis has a tilt of 6o.

Famous Historical Theories

1. Laplace's nebula theory (1796): This was a monistic theory - i.e. it
involved a single system. The theory states that it all began from a huge
cloud of gas which was spinning slowly. This cloud collapsed under gravity.
As it collapsed, it started spinning more quickly and began to flatten to
conserve angular momentum. Laplace also proposed that planets were
formed by the condensation of annular rings around the Sun which was one
of the major drawbacks of this theory.
2. Schmidt-Lyttleton accretion theory (1944): This was a dualistic theory i.e. it involved interaction of two systems. Schmidt proposed that the Sun passed
through a huge cloud of gas and acquired matter to form planets. However, for his
theory to be consistent, he postulated the presence of third body in the vicinity when
the Sun passed through this cloud. However, the need for the third body's presence
was removed when Lyttleton gave his modification of the theory involving line
accretion. In this form of accretion, mathematically described by Bondi and Hoyle
(1944), the material from the cloud get focussed gravitationally. The velocity of the

material perpendicular to its orbital axis around the central object get destroyed and it
is left with less than escape speed.

There were many other theories during those times like Chamberlin
and Moulton's planetesimal theory, Jeans' tidal theory, Von Weizsacker's
vortex theory etc. which were all more or less rejected.

Modern Theories
There are four major theories that are still considered as plausible for the
formation of the solar system.
1. Proto-planet Theory: McCrea, in 1960, gave a monistic theory trying to
explain simultaneously the formation of Sun and the planets. He started
with a cloud of dust and gas in a state of hypersonic turbulence. Thus, rapid
internal collisions took place. This resulted in aggregation of masses at
various places. He experimented with parameters like mass and radius of
cloud to explain the current state of the solar system. He gave a revised
theory in 1988.
2. Capture Theory: The theory, given by Woolfson in 1964, considers an
interaction between a condensed solar mass star (SUN) and a protostar of
lesser mass. The protostar entered the Roche limit and was disintegrated to
form bodies like planets. This would give a planar structure but highly
elliptical orbits.
3. The Solar Nebula Theory: This theory, given by Cameron in 1973,
begins with a slowly rotating nebula very similar to the Laplacian theory.
The planet formation starts with a disc of 0.01 to 0.1 solar masses. This is
also a monistic theory dealing with mass and angular momentum
distribution.
4. The Modern Laplacian Theory: This theory is also derived from the
Laplacian theory and was given by Prentice in 1974. He started with a cool
gas cloud which condensed in such a way that the angular momentum of

the central body was only 1 percent of the system. His contribution was
mainly giving a mathematical explanation of the process of formation. The
theory also explains formation of planets in concentric rings.

Why is the sun the center of the solar system?

The sun is at the middle of the solar system because the orbit or axis has a
gravitational pull that is used as a magnet to the metal inside the core of the
planets.The sun has a metal at the core but melted because of too much heat of
the sun that makes the sun at the center.Planets do not stay on one axis or orbit
because the gravitational pull of the axis or orbit is just enough for the planet it
holds
Who postulated that the sun is center of the solar system?

Nicolas Copernicus mainly, but other astronomers like Galileo did as well (even
Leonardo da Vinci did)
The first person known to have suggested that the Sun was at the center of the
solar system was the Greek astronomer and mathematician Aristarchus of
Samos, about 2400 years ago.
Nicolaus Copernicus is most famously known for postulating the theory of the heliocentric model.
Living and working during the late 1400s and early 1500s, much of his hypothesis was unproven for
years, however, his work became the basis of the astronomical revolution during the Renaissance.

Birth: February 19, 1473

Birth Place: Torun, Royal Prussia, Poland

Religious Standpoint: Roman Catholic
Fields: Mathematics, astronomy, canon law, medicine
Schooling: Krakow University, Bologna University, University of Padua, University of Ferrara
Only Doctoral Student: Georg Joachim Rheticus (who was instrumental in Copernicus
publishing De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (On the Revolutions of the

Heavenly Spheres)
Known for: Heliocentrism, the sun centered universe.