Dear colleague: The first second of the formation of our Universe when it went from nothing to something is too deep for us to comprehend. The formation of our solar system is a different case. Since the turn of the last century (1915) there has been a struggle between the Sir Isaac Newton scientists and the Albert Einstein scientists. Newton claimed anything with mass can be attracted by gravity and that there was no gravity in the cosmos. Einstein claimed there was gravity in the cosmos and it connected everything. Newton has been found to be correct while Einstein’s work has been discredited. The Accretion theory and all its misconceived variations
like Relativity and Special Relativity, positing that gas and dust gravitationally coalesced and became our solar system, is having serious difficulties proving its basic concepts and are flagrantly violating the laws of physics by trying to explain the improvable. Physics tells us that there is no gravity in a vacuum. We now know that although gas has mass it also has an escape velocity greater than Earth’s gravitational attraction. Any dictionary or encyclopaedia will define gas as a substance that expands indefinitely until it reaches its natural ceiling of lighter gas. Our atmosphere’s natural ceiling is the Helium filled Heliosphere. The heliosphere which completely surrounds the solar system and Earth’s magnetic field protects the Earth from radiation. The cosmos is a vacuum and there is no gravity in a vacuum, just inertia. In 1978 NASA’s Gravity Probe A confirmed that clocks move faster
in orbit than on Earth’s surface. This was all finally confirmed by the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Detector. The GWD Observatory which went into operation in 2002 and collected data has operated for 10 years without detecting any gravitational waves. Now that there is proof that the LIGO actually works the engineers are trying to upgrade it to an Advanced LIGO to try to accomplish their goal of trying to prove Relativity works. In 2015 the European Space Agency launched the LISA Pathfinder to find low-frequency gradational waves. None have yet to be detected.
2. Why weren’t the ‘rotating discs’ thrown out into space instead of accreting?
1.The laws of physics clearly state gas has a built in escape velocity that is stronger than gravity’s attraction, ismolecularly structured to electrical attraction and expands indefinitely. Q: Why are there no successful experiments to prove that gas can be attracted by gravity or condensed into solid particles anywhere in nature or anywhere on Earth? A: Because none exist.
The best-fit model of reality and the most logical formation explanation is namely ‘thermal reaction”, the process and results of freezing and thawing gases under extreme conditions’. This monistic concept of the formation of our solar system was first introduced by George Gamow and then Alpher, Herman, Sir Oliver Lodge, Sir James Jeans, Fred Hoyle, Hermann Bondi, Thomas Gold, and Hannes Alfven. They all believed the solar system started from a series of galvanic explosions from within our newly forming photostar 5 billion years ago and was termed monistic. The AP Theory is the most current monistic theory that was put foreword. Here are some of the unanswered accretion questions:
So far no gravity has been found in the cosmos as Sir Isaac Newton predicted. Accretion is a failed and rehashed theory of the Cartesian hypothesis, which was conceived by René Descartes (1644) (‘I think therefore I am’) and was successively mimicked by Swedenborg, Kant, Laplace, Chamberlin and Moulton, Carl von Weizsäcker, Whipple, Kuiper, Safronoff, and the astronomy establishment. The ‘new’ rewrite of the same old theory was named the Nebula hypothesis and was fi nally uncritically and blindly accepted by the International Astronomical Union and the Royal Astronomical Society for unknown reasons. The same unanswerable questions and improbable scenarios remain as they have for the past 350 years. The absence of explanations or logical answers makes their illogical reasoning open to questions and implies that a more fundamental theory exists.