Printer Friendly

Origin of planetary systems, planetary satellites and planetary lives on earth.

Vladimir Kompanichenko's paper, "Origin of Planetary Systems Due to Dichotomous Division of Ejected Superheat Mass," is interesting. (1) My earlier work on origin of planetary systems, which similarly proposed that planetary materials were egested from the Sun, gave me the privilege of responding to Kompanichenko's brilliant work. (2)

This aspect of my book, "Humankind, Religion, Science and the Future," was a reaction to the illogical sequence of events in the seven-day biblical creation. (2) According to the Book of Genesis, the Sun was created on the fourth day after the planet Earth was created by God. The problem then arose: How could the Sun be created on the fourth day after the Earth was created if sunlight was required to count days one to three? Or the corollary, how were days one, two and three counted without a Sun? This illogical sequence of creation possibly misinformed the premise of the extinct Aristotelian terrestrial mechanics that positioned the Earth as the center of the Universe. The impossibility of such a creation sequence was argued in my book on the premise that "planets can only come into existence given the presence of a Sun" and from that, it could be egested into space and not vice-versa. To that extent, I totally agree with Kompanichenko, but our views diverge there.

The dichotomous division of giant stars to smaller stars could be possible and logical. To extend that model to the formation of planetary systems and planetary satellites is wrong. The question then arises: Do giant stars have the same temperature, the same material constituents and the same consistence, as planets and planetary satellites? No. Assumptions can often mislead and this happens more often than we think in science.

If, according to Kompanichenko, Mercury and Venus bifurcated from the same parent planet, Mars and Earth bifurcated from one parent material, and if the Earth (a planet) and its Moon (satellite) bifurcated from the same parent material, etc., then the dating of the rock minerals with the same assumed parent body should give the same age. However, Kompanichenko's work did not provide this vital data that could have validated his theory. For instance, the Apollo lunar missions' results showed that a vast portion of the Moon is made up of minerals that are at least one billion years older than the age of Earth minerals. The age difference was not caused by the infiltration of extraneous materials from meteorites. Hence, the Earth and the Moon could not have bifurcated from the same giant parent and planetary material.

As articulated in my book, planetary materials were egested (not ejected) from a star in sequential epochs. (2) The mechanism was not by ejection due to internal tension and pressure, but is based on the passing out or egestion of accumulated dense matter (or fusion waste that could not efficiently generate more energy from further fusion) due to limited space for fusion and/or for accumulation of such dense matter. Such waste must be periodically egested if the Sun has to continue to generate fusion energy efficiently. Based on this process of formation of planets, the variability in the sizes of planets are naturally explicable.

The physics of the solar system, which created space and (relative) time, must stand on the shoulders of the chemistry that started the fusion of hydrogen atoms and creation of planetary material in the Sun. Similarly, biology and our very existence stands on the shoulders of the solar physics that created matter, and therefore, the planets that give us the notion of space and time instead of voidness or emptiness.

For a real scientist, it not a matter of mere curiosity, but a necessity to be able to comprehend the totality of this larger chemistry, this larger physics, and this larger biology as well as ecology, rather than being a specialized and narrow scientific expert. This ability is necessary to comprehend how it all started, where we came from and where we are going from here.

I will expatiate the position further on my egestion theory with one analogy as an applied biologist. Ingestion of food leads to the accumulation of wastes in the stomach. By interesting correspondence, energy has been extracted from the food leading to the accumulation of waste. Similarly, the Sun extracts energy and in the process accumulates wastes in the interior of the Sun. It is easy to assume from here that a star or sun will initially have a small empty core and waste accumulation channels that could also facilitate the rhythmic 'sucking in' of hydrogen gas, the pulsations of stars. As the empty inner core fills with accumulating dense matter, there will be feedback that communicates the time to egest the wastes from the interior of the Sun. There must be this space that accumulates dense wastes because the Sun does not get bigger or swell from the accumulation of nuclear wastes. At optimum accumulation point, the Sun (a star) egests matter (as one of the byproducts of nuclear fusion), while light and other electromagnetic waves are irreversibly propagated in space. The exit is also not likely to be at the Equator, but from a permanent exit that could close up after a discharge at its pole. The Sun functions as a perfect fusion energy-generating machine, even though it has a natural origin.

Volcanoes erupt on planets due to internal pressure, particularly because of weakness of the Earth's surface coat. The accumulation and eventual egestion of matter as a byproduct of nuclear fusion appears to occur in epochs or even periodically from mature, but possibly not old, stars. The age difference among the planets will indicate the frequencies of the egestion or ejection. Once outside, the molten planetary material from the Sun gradually cools down and hardens progressively from the surface to the core. The core, however, remains molten even when the exterior of the planet becomes cool enough to accommodate biological lives. The presence of a molten core confirms the origin of planets from the Sun.

Our Moon and the other planetary satellites did not bifurcate from big planets. The biblical theory of creation and the Darwinian theory of evolution create implicit assumptions that limit the thinking of scientists and introduce incoherence in scientific theories, research methodologies and interpretation of research results. (3) From my observations and studies, the creationist and Darwinian biological evolution theories will become extinct like the ancient Aristotelian mechanics, sooner than later. (2)

Creationism and Darwinism have made it impossible for scientists to think that our Moon and similar satellites in our solar system are not likely to be of natural origin. Artificial origin could not be inferred even when the evidence stares scientists in the face. If the moons bifurcated from bigger planets, they will remain spherical, with a solid or molten core and not become distorted with age. If the moons or satellites are spherical or were initially spherical with hollow interiors, they are then more of artificial than natural origin from bigger planets. Planets maintain a molten core, no matter how small the core gets with age. Our satellite, the Moon is hollow without a solid core or a volcanic core like planets.

Mind constricting assumptions in science and theology also make us to think that only one planet in a solar system will have optimum conditions (temperature, rainfall, gasses, soil minerals, humidity, etc.) for the existence of life. We have therefore been inhibited from thinking that optimum conditions for life can shift from planet to planet as the planets age in succession. We are inhibited from thinking that humankind can play a role in creating or destroying the optimum conditions for life on a planet. We are conditioned by evolutionist and biblical anthropologists to see different races at different levels of intelligent evolution forgetting that the subhuman environments that societies create for some people are actually eroding their intelligence.

Our inherited wrong ways of thinking have become the underlying assumptions to scientific and social thinking. The wrong theories have limited our knowledge and understanding of planetary biology and ecology and dwarfed our solar physics and limited our space technology thinking. We must overcome the false assumptions and all the erroneous thinking to move science to larger frontiers.

P. O. Adetiloye

P. O. Box 84, UNAAB

Abeokuta, Nigeria


(1.) Kompanichenko, V. (2005) "Origin of Planetary Systems due to Dichotomous Division of Ejected Superheat Mass." Frontier Perspectives, 14 (1), 14-25.

(2.) Adetiloye, P. O. (1996). Humankind, religion, science and the future--In struggles to discover the sacred science of ages. Ibadan, Nigeria: Ideas and Innovations Publications, 245.

(3.) Gernert , D. (2005). "Implicit, Incoherent and Inconsistent Knowledge." Frontier Perspectives, 14 (1), 26-31.
COPYRIGHT 2005 Temple University - of the Commonwealth System of Higher Education, through its Center for Frontier Sciences
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2005 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Adetiloye, P.O.
Publication:Frontier Perspectives
Geographic Code:1USA
Date:Sep 22, 2005
Previous Article:SuperWave reality.
Next Article:Periodicals of interest.

Related Articles
Modeling the moon's origin.
Life on Mars: Take two.
Space rocks' demo job: asteroids, not comets, pummeled early Earth.
Volcanic eruption on Io breaks the record. (Leapin' Lava!).
Atmosphere blocks many small stony asteroids. (Protective Blanket).
A Martian haven for life?
Icy heat: satellites look at heat flow through Antarctica's crust.
What wavelengths?
Worlds on Fire: Volcanoes on the Earth, the Moon, Mars, Venus, and Io.
Origin of planetary systems due to dichotomous division of the ejected superheat mass.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2022 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters |