Home Page General Articles Genesis Science Mission
Scripture Categories Genesis Science Mission Online Store

Creation Links

Anomalies Creation Science Talk Blog

Nebula Hypothesis


The Nebula Hypothesis is the most generally accepted evolutionary model for formation of the Solar System. According to this model the process starts with a rotating cloud of gas that contracts and flattens to form a disk of dust and gas around a forming star at center. Planets grow from the dust and gas in the disk and are left behind when disk clears.

The Nebula Hypothesis should always result in the same basic pattern, with the heated inner disk forming terrestrial planets and the cold outer disk forms gas giants.

One of the big problems for this model is that the Sun rotates too slowly. You see the Sun contains 99.9% of mass of the solar system but the planets contain 98% angular momentum. This translates into the planets have 50 times the Sun's angular momentum while the sun  would have needed to have 700 times the planets' combined angular momentum. So according to Nebula model the Sun should spin faster, in fact much faster. Evolutionists understand the problem, so they propose that it has sun has slowed over time, but this fails to consider the true scope of the problem.
 
Just to get the sun even with the planets it would have to be rotating 50 times faster than it actually is. To satisfy the conservation of angular momentum, it would have started rotating 700 times faster than that. That means that the sun's initial rotation rate was 35,000 times it present rate. Now the sun is presently rotating at one revolution per 25.38 Earth days.  So a rotation rate that is 35,000 faster than present produces an initial period of revolution of 1 minute and 2.65 seconds.

This is not the worst of it. According to the CRC Hand Book of  Chemistry and Physics, the sun's equatorial rotational velocity is 2.0578 km/s this mean that the initial equatorial rotational velocity would be  72,023 km/s or nearly a quarter the speed of light.

It gets even worst. The sun's surface escape velocity is 617.23 km/s, which is 116.7 times smaller than the initial equatorial rotational velocity of 72,023 km/s. The result is that the sun would literally fly apart. That is assuming it formed to begin with, which of course it would not have.


 Extra Solar Planets.

Over a hundred Extra Solar (Exo)Planets have been detected to date, all of which are large, with the smallest about twice the size of the Earth. The largest ones are many time the size of Jupiter. Some are large enough to be classified as brown dwarfs. They are usually detected by indirect means, like their affect on their parent star.

Recently one was confirmed orbiting the star HD 209458 by the effect on the star's light during transit. Astronomers also detected spectral evidence of sodium in the planet's atmosphere. A larger one has actually been photographed near Gliese 229. It is classified as a brown dwarf. One possible planet called SOri70 is located 36,000 times farther from its star than Jupiter is from our Sun.

Many of these planets are extremely close to their sun, some times surprisingly close. One planet orbits around HD 209458 at 4 million miles. Upsilon Andromedae has three gas giants, all of which are too close too their sun for gas giants to form under Nebula Hypothesis and one is  too close too the sun for any planet to  form. These planets are so close to their stars that they defy evolutionary models of planet formation. The star would sweep up too much mass and the temperatures are too high. Evolutionists have invented a number of mechanisms to cause planets to migrate closer to their star, but they all require assuming unrealistic gas and dust densities.

The Kepler Space Telescope has found a planetary system that poses a real problem for planet formation theory and that is because it defies the expected order of planet types which should be rocky inner planets with gas giant outer planets. Not only are all five of these planets closer to their star than mercury is to our sun but the planet order goes gas giant, terrestrial, gas giant, terrestrial, gas giant.

Designation

Obit (Earth Orbit 1 AU)

Orbital Period
 (Earth Days)

Radius Mass Type

kepler20b

0.0454 AU

3.7 Days

1.91 Earth 8.7 Earth

Gas Giant

kepler20e

0.0537 AU 6.1 Days 0.868 Earth 1 Earth

Rocky

kepler20c

O.093 AU 10.85 Days 3.07 Earth 16.1 Earth Gas Giant

kepler20f

0.117 AU 19.58 Days 1.034 Earth 1 Earth Rocky

kepler20d

0.345 AU 77.6 Days 2.75 Earth 12 Earth Gas Giant

The point is that besides fact that these planets are could not have formed so close to their star, the order is not anything like what planetary formation theory says it should be. Ir is yet another strike against naturalistic theories of planer formation.


“Supporting” evidence


HubbleSite - NewsCenter - 1995 - 45 - Image c -
Panoramic Hubble Picture Surveys Star Birth, Proto-Planetary Systems in the Great Orion Nebula
From: NASA and STScI


 HubbleSite - NewsCenter - 1995 - 45 - Image b -
Panoramic Hubble Picture Surveys Star Birth, Proto-Planetary Systems in the Great Orion Nebula
From: NASA and STScI

These are the so called Protoplanetary disks from the Orion Nebula. The glow in center of the disks probably is a stars. It needs to be noted that there is no evidence of planet formation in these images.


 HD141569


HubbleSite - NewsCenter - 2003 - 02 - Image a
Hubble Reveals Complex Circumstellar Disk
From: NASA and STScI

Here is another alleged Protoplanetary disk. Once again it needs to be noted that there is no evidence of planet formation in this image. The brighter rings in the image would be consistent with the destruction of a planet in that location.


Spectrographic Evidence of Discs Around Stars.



Image ssc2004-08c
NASA/JPL-Caltech

While Spectrographic Evidence does not show the motion of the material around a star, it does suggest the presence of a disk of material around stars, even when such disks can not be seen optically. Some times this data seems to suggest dust and gas while other times debris such as asteroids. Once again it needs to be noted that there is no evidence of planet formation in this data.


Forming or Destroyed Planets?

Does this dust and debris represent forming planets or destroyed planets?

Massive Coronal Mass Ejections called Super flares have observed that are 10 million times more powerful than any Coronal Mass Ejections from the sun. A super flare that is powerful and concentrated enough these could theoretically destroy planets.

Other forms of stellar out gassing could theoretically destroy planets as well.

Planets with above average amounts of radioactive nuclei could have large amounts of nuclear fission, if powerful enough this could cause their demise; particularly with large amounts of relatively short lived nuclei.

If the planets also had above average amounts of radioactive nuclei, this too could contribute to their demise. The dust and other debris from such planets would remain in orbit around the star forming a disk. Some of the mater ejected from the star would be brought in to orbit by planetary material. The speed and location of ejected marital would be a major factor. This would also explain so called protostars, since if any of these stars ejected too much material, their nuclear fusion reactions would shut down.


In no case is there any evidence of planet formation. Stars shoot out gas all the time and they can pass through nebulae, so none of these images can be legitimately considered evidence for the Nebula Hypothesis.

As shown above there is no real evidence supporting the Nebula Hypothesis, but plenty of evidence against it.


 

Sponsor a page

at $1 a month

$11 for a year

Support this website  with a $1 gift.

 
 

Visit our

Online Store

Gifts of other amounts

Click Here

 


 
Custom Search
 

The existence and origin of extra solar planets

Laplace: The nebular hypothesis

REVELATIONS IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM--Part 1

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 43.   Strange Planets: