© Harold Aspden, 1997

Research Note: 010/97: April 27, 1997

Have you ever wondered about the creation of stars and planets? You surely have, but you well know that astrophysicists have expert knowledge on this subject and so you all you can do is be attentive to what they have to tell us.

This research note is being written on Sunday, April 27, 1997. Yesterday Nigel Hawkes, the Science Editor of The Times (London, U.K.) reported on page 4 of that newspaper a news item headed 'Discovery of giant planet suggests other Earths exist'. That, of itself, is hardly news. There are so many stars like the Sun in the universe and it is plain common sense to assume that there are countless other planets similar to body Earth in the vast arena of space.

No, the news item that I found of interest was summarized in the last paragraph of that report. It followed the comment that there is now evidence that some stars have giant planets that can be closer to the star than Earth is to the Sun. Hawkes wrote:

'The unsolved mystery is why such massive planets should form so close to their parent stars. Current theories of the birth of the solar system suggest that large planets could form only a long way from stars.'
He ended by quoting Dr. Robert Noyes of the Smithsonian Institution Astrophysical Observatory in Cambridge, Massachusetts as saying: "
'The whole picture of solar-system formation needs to be looked at afresh in the light of these new planet discoveries.'
Now, first, before one starts reading the history books on science to see what good ideas are already of record, let us take stock of a statement made in this newspaper report. It said that the newly-discovered giant planet was slightly more massive than Jupiter and was in orbit around the star Rho Coronae Borealis, which is 50 light years away. It further quoted Dr. Timothy Brown of NCAR (National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado) as saying:
"All the giant planets found so far orbit Sun-like stars. Rho Coronae Borealis is another one of these, but it appears to be ten billion years old - twice as old as the Sun."
Let us here apply a little logic. If, when a new solar system is formed, the large planets can only come into being 'a long way from the star', then it follows that, with the passage of time, they will either wander further and further away from the star or progressively get closer to that star. It is all a question of how energy and angular momentum adjust with time, but the same assumptions must be applied to the planets in orbit around the Sun and those in orbit around that more-aged star. So we find that when the star is twice as old as the Sun the giant planet is seen to be very much closer to the star that its counterpart in our solar system. I do not find that at all surprising, if the assumption is made that the planets will eventually die by falling into their local star. What would be surprising would be the discovery that planets can escape from their orbits with the passage of time and wander off into outer space, but that cannot be if the older star has managed to pull them in closer and closer from the orbit in which they were created.

That, however, goes against the theme of that 'unsolved mystery', because its authors seem to 'know' that the planet was 'born' in the precise orbital location where it is today, or rather 50 years ago, allowing for the observational delay. Who is to say where a planet is born, merely from observation after billions of years?

We must, of course, look again at the theory of planetary creation, but dare I suggest that we should first decide how the individual stars were formed, before we extrapolate into the realm of planetary creation?

If you, the reader, are ready to learn something about my published work on that subject, which is quite comprehensive and will tell you how large planets form from their parent star, then Chapter 8 of my book 'Physics Unified' is available. However, what you will learn by referring to that work is that the star is born at a time when gravity 'switches on', as it were. If that surprises then you should be equally surprised by the fact that the phenomenon of ferromagnetism which pulls iron into itself 'switches on' when the iron cools through its Curie temperature. It is, surely, plausible to assume that cooling played a part in the coalescence of astronomical bodies from dispersed cosmic dust.

Of course, this means that I am assuming a justifiable analogy between the electrodynamic processes that occur in a ferromagnet and those that occur on a cosmic scale, but that kind of assumption is the driving force urging cosmologists forward in their quest to find a Unified Field Theory. Contrary to what they have to say, the story I tell is one of conquest in that territory, but it has already been told before, as in my book 'Physics Unified'. All I am doing now, as I watch the new discoveries, is saying "I told you so!"

In that book you will see that, whereas Einstein tried to replace the aether with 'four-space', I stuck to the aether picture and first solved the mystery of energy storage by magnetic inductive reaction and then solved the problem raised by the Michelson-Morley experiment, but that is a long story.

So far as the creation of a star is concerned, what happens is that the primordial star acquires a net charge owing to its protons aggregating together on a priority basis before the full measure of neutralizing electrons come along. You see, the mutual acceleration of attraction between two protons is greater than that between two electrons by a factor of 1836, the proton-electron mass ratio. Think about it and work it out yourself! My research told me that the radial electric field set up inside a plasma body would promote a spin in the underlying aether and this is why stars were born in a state of spin. As the charge was neutralized by the arrival of the electrons that spin was enough to cause the planetary matter to be thrown off, but, with the passage of time, as the stellar system settles down, the chances are that those planets so formed will drop back into the star as energy is dissipated.

If you think this is all hypothesis then look at that book 'Physics Unified' and see how the numbers work out. By that I mean that you can actually calculate how energy and mass is apportioned between star and planets. If you do not want to buy my book but are just curious to see the case I present, then be patient. It is only a question of time and the equally limited resources I have at my disposal. I shall, as the months go by, be adding the analysis to these Web pages, but if you are a student of cosmology and are in a hurry to get the measure of this so as to save wasting time studying false doctrine about the Big Bang and such like, then you really need to read up on what I have been writing about over the years. The alternative is to read about the evolving saga of observations in cosmological science that do not fit accepted theory as regularly reported in science journals and then try to decipher the developing confusion for yourself.

By the way, long before Earth gets too close to the Sun for human comfort, it will pass through a space domain boundary and mankind will be unlikely to survive unless space stations can serve as a kind of Noah's Ark. Happily, the last such crossing was about 12,000 years ago and another one is not due for ... well, again, read my book 'Physics Unified' and you will see yourself how you might be able to predict that event!