Alta Vigilem

Dear Science Forums, When I posted this I really didn't know what to expect. I mean, having used internet forums before, and knowing from history in general how eager people always are to embrace new ideas, I was naturally prepared for a small amount of hostility. What I must admit to being surprised at though is the level of apathy and the total lack of intellectual substance in the comments my original post received. Out of the eighty five people who have apparently viewed my post so far (if in fact they read any of it) I am surprised that not even one person would offer a serious critique of ANY of my premises or ANY of my conclusions. I had, with tempered optimism, hoped perhaps for a non-confrontational discussion about the idea I was advancing, but I would have settled even for just a straightforward defense of established opinion. Instead I am left with neither. The responses I have gotten are comparable to the sort of thing I could have obtained from either Siri or Cleverbot. If I was administering a Turing Test I would only barely give this forum a passing grade. Nevertheless, I will respond to all the people who have commented. I know this forum considers itself a science forum but please forgive me if I discuss very little science in my responses – my commentators gave me nothing scientific to work with. Dear Klaynos, I appreciate that out of all the respondents you were the only one who didn't directly insult me. This is to your credit. Regardless of how wrong a person's ideas may be or how much we may differ with a person, I suspect you would still agree that they deserve to be treated with a basic amount of decency and respect. I for one believe that even if someone is completely delusional they do not deserve to be mocked – most people of course would pay lip service to this sentiment but perhaps you genuinely believe it too? At least you have not proven otherwise. However I must take exception to certain implications in your question. You seem to think that the onus is on me to prove my theory – if this is so then I must be blunt and say that I don't think you really understand what science is all about. Science in its truest form, as I understand it, places the onus on every individual person to determine things for themselves. The fact that you have thrown out a challenge to me to prove my idea indicates that you don't share this opinion. Your conception of science seems to be that it is ultimately some form of ideological struggle – a contest of world views if you will – and that I am under some obligation to convert people to my viewpoint if I want to present a different viewpoint. This of course goes against the whole notion of science as a collaborative enterprise. Hypothetically though science could actually be done with extremely narrow specialists – you could conceivably have someone whose sole function in a scientific society was to produce original hypotheses, and others whose sole function was to test said hypotheses. To enforce this sort of thing though would be unnecessarily artificial but the general idea is that science can be contributed to in many ways BEYOND total proofs. I would argue that science actually can benefit from pure speculation – provided said speculation is stimulating enough to others that they take an interest in its verification themselves. After all, it was not Einstein who "proved" General Relativity – it was Eddington's expedition to Principe for the solar eclipse that did that. Sadly this is not my only problem with your post. What you are asking for is in fact a proof even though my article clearly states that it is only a theory. I know sometimes theory and proof (proven theory) are used interchangeably but in section 1.3 of my article I explicitly acknowledged that my theory does not have the sort of proof you are asking for. Now, maybe you think that my posting a theory without strict proof is somehow improper – that is certainly an argument that CAN be made – however your post nevertheless still demonstrates that you have not paid any real attention to what I actually said in it. I'm not saying that you have to pay attention to it but it does seem to me that if you are going to respond to it at all you should at least respond to what I actually say. Of course, hypothetically, if you had asserted that I was being derelict somehow in not providing a strict proof, I would have responded that imposing such an obligation on me was (in accordance with my previous paragraph) was actually quite unscientific on your part. I mean, if someone can't offer pure speculation on an internet forum then where could they offer pure speculation? And again I refer you to my previous defense of speculation. Certainly you didn't delete my post for being speculative but at the same time you didn't engage it in a meaningful – let alone serious – way. Lastly (with respect to you individually) I just have to mention the lack of moderating in my thread. If I don't sound upset it's because the type of people who would be obnoxious towards someone on an internet forum are not people whose opinions, to my mind, carry any weight – but the simple fact that this sort of behavior would be allowed to go unremarked, in a forum with a presumably genuine desire to foster scientific discussion, is very much disappointing. I think intellectual discussion absolutely requires a certain level of civility. As soon as people become antagonistic towards one another, rationality tends to become polluted with negative emotions. I must sincerely impress upon you the fact then that this sort of pollution is precisely what you have admitted into my thread – and as such I suspect that it is admitted elsewhere. You should at least know then that by allowing this sort of thing you are undermining the very purpose for which these forums were created. Also, while I am perfectly capable of handling any hecklers myself, other people are not necessarily so capable. And such people also have meaningful things to say and real contributions they can make! But if they are treated with such hostility they are likely to remain silent. Imagine if you will how Godel might have reacted if he was confronted with anger or hate for simply thinking strange thoughts? Although he was a preeminent genius, his psychological constitution was such that I doubt he could endure anything of the sort. Imagine if out of fear he had refrained from producing his great works? What a loss! And of course there's also the case of Cantor whose descent into madness was no doubt partially caused by the harassment he received from people like Kronecker. Moreover, do you really want your forums to be dominated by hostile discourse? Bignose, When you say that the universe is under no obligation to meet anyone's definition of elegance I could also add that the universe is under no obligation to meet anyone's definitions at all. But then that would actually also include your definition that it's not under any obligations. So you've resorted to a demonstrably circular argument. Furthermore, science in fact does require that we make definitions – they are literally necessary for the advancement of scientific knowledge. Sure we can discard the old ones once we find better ones but we can't get anywhere without ANY definitions. If you truly disagree with this assertion then you can no doubt provide at least one example of a scientific accomplishment in the history of the world which was free of all axioms, all conjectures, all premises. I however feel confident in asserting that we can safely characterize theories as themselves really just a sum of definitions which function together to describe some given phenomena. Although perhaps you would protest here and assert that you were only criticizing my reliance on the concept of elegance? If so I can easily address that position too. Elegance is a well established concept in the philosophy of science. Its most famous formulation is perhaps the one provided by Occam's Razor – entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity. But it influences the actual practice of science in a variety of forms – in fact any science of mathematics that has some element of Pythagorean influence in it (which includes ALL Platonism, for example people like Godel) is fundamentally concerned with issues of elegance. Euler's theorem is considered so wonderful precisely because of its elegance. And beyond the overwhelming trend of great scientists and mathematicians to AVOWEDLY aspire to elegance (Newton, Gauss, Leibniz, Einstein, Ramanujan, Penrose, and on and on – if you don't believe me just search math/science + beauty) there is also overwhelming evidence of elegance in all great mathematical and scientific achievements. Maxwell's equations may be useful but even if we couldn't utilize them for any practical purpose still their elegance would be intact. So if you think that my appeal to elegance is not rigorous enough you are welcome to do so but you should know that you are putting yourself in opposition to the true spirit of scientific discovery. Knowledge is wonderful in its own sake. Why? Because like most great art it possesses intrinsic beauty. If you on the other hand simply regard science as a means to material ends, as a sort of slave to serve purely practical issues, then I would say that your appreciation of science is hopelessly impoverished. Maybe you don't believe those things though? If that is so I do not understand your objection to my referencing elegance. Sure you can say that my ideas of elegance are different than yours – but then you could say that my ideas of anything are different than yours. Are you trying to engage me in a discussion of metaphysics? Or pure philosophy? Linguistics? I really don't see the basis for your objection here. Honestly. I don't think its reasonably justifiable. I mean, what do you want from me? Not to make use of the concept of elegance? Well that's absurd obviously because its threaded throughout the entire history of science. But then the only other interpretation of your objection is that you don't want me to make use of MY understanding of elegance. Which begs the question – whose understanding but my own can I use? As I said, the former objection is absurd – but this latter objection would be a whole other magnitude of absurdity that simply boggles the mind. Then of course there's the malicious and completely pointless snipe you take at me to end your comment. So you think my ideas are hackneyed and clumsy – no need to be coy about it. I would counter though that insulting someone in an internet forum is itself an inherently hackneyed and clumsy thing to do. Especially when I hadn't done anything to you which could even remotely be construed as a personal attack. So for you to introduce yourself to me with an insult – no, THAT'S hackneyed and clumsy. Hackneyed because attacking people on the internet for no reason is certainly something that's been done to death, clumsy because your post wasn't in the least bit eloquent, and as such failed both as intellectual criticism and as an attempt to belittle me. Fairly clumsy if you ask me. Impressively clumsy for you to achieve both these things in so few words. If someone runs a marathon and then trips over their own feet that's one thing, but when someone takes a single step and trips over themselves, now THAT'S impressive. Also, I would just like to point out to you that either you don't know what hackneyed means or you are simply incapable of properly using it (Maybe just the clumsiness?) because hackneyed means commonplace, trite, stale, etc. Now, say what you will about my theory but I'm not exactly regurgitating something that's already been said – unless you'd like to point out to me where someone else has asserted that all the planets share a single orbital path that has the trajectory of a logarithmic spiral, and that accounts for all satellites through said spiral and the process of accretion. Yeah – kind of doubt you've heard that one before. ACG52, Last, and deservedly least, I come to you. You managed two whole posts (Good for you!) and twenty four whole words! And you strung them together in a basically linear way and everything! Unfortunately you also made the most ridiculous and pathetic of the accusations against me. I find myself at a curious loss as to how to satisfactorily respond. On the one hand I could try and take the high road like I just did twice now – but then it strikes me that why would you engage people in such a hostile way unless you yourself regard hostility as superior to civility? How then can I deprive you of the very thing you think is so fitting for others? It's settled. I will respond to you with exactly the same tone and with exactly the same absence of respect with which you responded to me. So, despite the fact that I regard it as perfectly tedious to metaphorically smack down little troglodytic homunculi like yourself, I will bite the bullet for your sake. You must understand though what a sacrifice it is I'm making. You see, arguing with you is like playing an FPS on God Mode. You can't challenge me, you can't hurt me, and as such you certainly can't interest me. Obviously I'm also not going to get any satisfaction from beating you in a contest of wits or insults. The internet can always respawn endless numbers of new idiots so there's no point in anyone trying to destroy even one of them. In terms of intellectual discussion that makes you the equivalent of a mosquito – sure I can flatten you with one blow, but as long as I remain in the swamp I'm just going to have to deal with an endless series of identical insects. As I said – I really prefer to avoid confrontation so please believe that I am only engaging you this way because I think you are so desperate for it. You might however want to talk to a professional about your unaddressed masochistic tendencies. Okay, on to your actual comments. Beginning of course with the matter of word salad. This represents a truly impressive level of failure. Not only have you failed to address the contents of my theory, not only have you failed to refute the contents of my theory, not only have you failed to succeed at making me feel hurt (which clearly is the only possible intention your snide post could have had) but you even managed to fail at using the phrase word salad correctly. You see, word salad refers to when a writer appears to randomly assemble words together. Word salad then is the sort of derogatory characterization that one would make of the works of Hegel for example (not entirely fairly mind you) or Joyce's Finnegan's Wake (also unfair) Accusations of word salad then are really only applicable to very abstract philosophy, avant-garde poetic writing, and perhaps the larger portion of post-modernism. My article on the other hand makes the very explicit assertion that planets follow a specific trajectory (one which I contend is shared) and that they and their satellites are all formed by the same process of accretion. This is clearly a straightforward proposition. In fact I even drew some diagrams which help explain the whole thing – diagrams which I suspect that most elementary school children could interpret. Now, the fact that something is understandable does not automatically make it true – but it does by definition exclude it from the category of nonsense. Frankly your effort to disparage me is just really pitiful. I mean if you're going to try and stick a knife in someone you pretty much can't get more inept than dropping the knife on your own foot – and that's exactly what you've accomplished. In fact my previous characterization of your failure was not even nearly adequate. Your failure ascends to geological proportions. What I mean is that you have managed to create so many levels of failure that your failures can be classified according to their own strata. You have as such buried the notion that you might have any intellectual credibility. And to achieve all this in an eight word reply to me! That must surely be unprecedented – even across the WHOLE INTERNET. But then there's your second reply! Which is even better! Using a hackneyed and clumsy scatological analogy (Where's Bignose when you need him?) you feebly accuse me of self indulgence. Right. Because I am so desperate for this forum to validate my self-worth I am sure. Ironically, where as my motivation can't be demonstrably reduced to self indulgence (a priori, given your lack of a sufficient context of determination) your response actually can be logically demonstrated to only be explainable AS self indulgence. To do this we need only consider all of those who could benefit from your type of comment (a weak insult) Do I benefit from being weakly insulted? No. Can anyone else on this forum benefit from reading your weak insult of me? No. Well then – who does that leave to benefit from this statement? I guess just you. So, by definition, your statement is self indulgence. It's so self indulgent that you're not just inhaling your own effluvium (look it up!) you have your entire head firmly lodged inside the deepest rancid depths of your own rectum. Now, if I were to revert momentarily to taking the high road I might point out to you that your resort to such a crude analogy has no justifiable basis in a real intellectual discussion, but being as that would actually be an attempt at edifying you as to your own personality flaws – and in doing so opening up the possibility that you might address them FOR YOUR OWN SAKE – I will refrain from such an inappropriate consideration of you. Clearly you want your discourse at the level of brute force, at the level of malicious conflict – as such I can only pray that I am now satisfying that pathological urge. Just for good measure though I want you to know one last thing. You are poison to science. You are literally the enemy of science. Here's why – science depends fundamentally on there being people willing to risk making errors. Science can only exist as long as there are people who have the courage to be wrong. A science that satisfies itself with old knowledge is a stagnant science – and therefore a dead science. It is clear from your posts that you will never have the courage to attempt an original idea. Clearly you resent the mere attempt at originality. Given this you will never be anything more than an obstacle to scientific progress. Admittedly a small, insignificant obstacle but an obstacle none the less. What you are is a representation of all that is wrong with the human spirit – you are a creature adapted to sunless caverns, evolved into a condition of perpetual blindness. Or, if I were to raise you to the level of an ape, you would be the ape that cringes before the fire caused by a lightning strike – never the ape that sees the potential that possessing fire has, never the ape that ventures forth to risk the heat of the flames. If human progress depended on people like you, human beings wouldn't have agriculture, or wheels, or even sharpened wooden sticks. They would crawl around on all fours (after they had fallen out of their trees, being too timid to ever climb up them again) and they would only ever eat what they could scrounge by dragging their faces across the dirt. Is that enough word salad for you? Before I end this modest apology, I would like to address myself to one other group. A hypothetical group I must confess. I am here referring to any one of the eighty five people who might have read my post and thought that my theory might not be entirely devoid of merit. I just want you to know that you are the worst of all, far worse than ACG52. He at least has an excuse in being too damned stupid to really be held accountable for anything. I mean, I'm not going to despise a paramecium because of the way it responds to environmental stimuli – ACG52 is doomed to react to other people's higher aspirations with anger and resentment because that is the only way he can compensate for his own deficiencies. And he has a lot of deficiencies to compensate for. You on the other hand refused to speak up out of sheer cowardice. You saw the opinions of the others and decided to keep silent so that you wouldn't expose yourselves to ridicule for supporting what others condemned. I could compare you to someone who stands by in the street and watches someone get mugged without doing anything but that would be unfair. The coward in the street faces the real possibility that they could suffer physical injury – your cowardice on the other hand is so great you won't even say something unpopular on an internet forum. Because what if people on the internet said mean things about you! Absolutely pathetic. Of course I don't care. It doesn't bother me that you are completely spineless – I just don't want you jumping in after my response trying to become my supporter. You know what they say about fair weather friends? Worthless. Finally, to the forum as a whole, I offer my sincerest condolences. I'm sorry I burdened you with a radical idea. I'm sorry I didn't formulate it exactly to your perfect liking. And I'm sorry I didn't take any time to flatter you before I tried to engage you intellectually – I was naïve enough to think that maybe ideas mattered to you people and that this forum might be more than just a stage for an endless preening ego contest. Have no fear though – I will not post on these forums again. You can spend the rest of your lives fawning over the old orthodoxies and dusting them in the abject emptiness that is your fondest ambition – for all I care you can avoid using your imaginations whatever way you please. I will not even check to see if this post gets any replies. I am done with all of you.

A New Theory For How Solar Systems Evolve 1. An Introduction to the Theory 2. The Organic Hypothesis 3. Comparing our Solar System 4. Six Steps Toward Verification 5. One Notable Difficulty 6. Concluding Observations An Introduction to the Theory 1.0 In this article we will present an alternative to the standard theory that is presently used to explain how our solar system came to be. 1.1 The standard theory can be best described perhaps as the Enhanced Nebular Hypothesis (ENH) – enhanced because it has been substantially refined since its original formulations in the eighteenth century. To summarize it briefly – the ENH speculates that the primary event in the formation of our solar system was the collapse of a vast molecular cloud into a concentrated mass that then transformed into our sun. Additionally a protoplanetary disk composed of the unutilized remains of the original molecular cloud formed around this and provided the basis for our planets to come into existence through a process of accretion. 1.2 The theory we will advance as an alternative to this we will call the Organic Hypothesis (OH) – organic not because it has any biological foundation but because we regard the process of its evolution as much more elegant and free of ad hoc premises. It is our opinion that the OH does for stellar formation what the theory of natural selection did for biological diversity – that is – provide a single mechanism to explain the entire order of things within a particular scientific domain. 1.3 It is not our contention though that the OH has been proven even though we hold it to be true. Strict proof here will depend on further mathematical and empirical corroboration. We have offered our theory in its present form however because it is so basic, so easy to appreciate, and so comprehensive, that we cannot seriously imagine that such an elegant idea could be false. When Einstein was asked by a journalist what his reaction would have been if a test of Relativity had proven him incorrect he replied "I would be sorry for the Lord because the theory is correct" – meaning that his theory was so perfectly coherent that there was nothing he could imagine which would contradict it. We too share this sense of clarity and it is our hope that by publishing our theory as it is we can inspire others with the same sense of promising insight. 1.5 Wanting to make it accessible to the widest possible readership – we have chosen to present our theory in a manner intelligible even to people without any special knowledge of astronomy. The minimal technical details here are irrelevant anyways since if the idea has any appeal it will naturally excite other people to investigate it. The Organic Hypothesis 2.0 Imagine a star completely free of any close orbiting bodies. Across its turbulent surface, coronal mass ejections are constantly discharging solar plasma into various directions of space. Some of this matter is caught by the star's own gravity and reabsorbed while other matter instead has the trajectory of their flight constrained into an orbital path. And given the pressure of the solar winds and or simply the initial force of velocity isn't it possible that the transit of this primordial satellite will consist of a gradual escape? A slow spiraling outward? Could a planet then not start off as a small protoplanetary seed gradually drifting across the solar plane? 2.1 Assuming this hypothesis for the sake of argument – what will be the continual fate of this body? Given its own gravity will it not also be subject to the process of accretion? If so this satellite would generally grow larger as it traveled farther from its stellar source and anyone studying such a body would then be able to establish some correlation between the mass of the body and its distance from its star. 2.2 In proportion to its increasing distance we would also expect a decreasing temperature. And consistent with this would also be atmospheric and geological changes, so that after this solar satellite had become a genuine planet it would still be undergoing fundamental changes. In the course of the planet's evolution then we would expect a constant process of development analogous to the transformation of an embryo into a fully formed animal. 2.3 Consistent with the outwardly spiraling accretion of a planet as it travelled away from its star would be the same process transpiring for the planet itself. As such every planet would gradually form its own satellites and the older the planet was the more satellites it would acquire. And noticeably among these satellites – these moons – we might generally expect to find the larger moons tending to have the outermost orbits since they are the oldest, and the smaller moons tending to have the innermost orbits since they are the youngest. The larger planets then would mirror their own solar system, their lesser spirals a sort of fractal repetition of the greater spiral since only one mechanism is at work, one pattern. 2.4 But considering the weakening gravitational force of any body on other bodies as the distance between them increases, we would be inattentive to assume that the process of accretion would continue indefinitely. In fact we would expect that at some point a threshold would be reached where accretion ended – where a planet became so remote from the discharge of its star that it no longer had a steady source of new mass. Additionally we could imagine that past this threshold every planet would begin to lose mass. And with this loss of mass it would also be reasonable to expect that a planet must shed its moons. 2.5 Along with the progressive weakening of gravity we would also expect to see the orbits of planets at some point decay into complete eccentricity and escape the gravitational hold of their star. In fact this eccentricity would be equally anticipated within the innermost region of the solar system since orbits having an extreme nearness to the sun – still in the process of being formed from their random trajectories – should display a proportional impress of chaos. With this though we would expect a certain amount of stability across a wide region of space where the planets would spiral outward in a fairly regular order. There would be a harmony in the spheres traceable in their transit. 2.6 It would not be justified though to infer that those planets which were in the more median stage of their life cycle would have the least eccentric orbits since the initial conditions during the formation of their orbits would be vulnerable to chaos. Again, like embryos they would be most susceptible to external forces at the beginning of their life cycles and so could fluctuate with some degree of randomness in their later orbital paths. Still we would expect a certain statistical orderliness in their spacing relative to one another, in the intervals that separated them from each other. A solar system as such would branch almost like a tree, with certain regular points of junction – the many planetary limbs – that could become deformed due to random conditions and events but that would still express a sort of misshapen testament to their essential nature. 2.7 Besides moons though a planet would also presumably collect smaller satellites over the course of its life. As such these finer bodies would accumulate into orbiting disks that would grow over time. But like planetary moons and the planets themselves, when the mass had diminished of the body whose gravity formed them, their accretion disks would logically disappear in a gradual evaporation. So only the most massive planets would have these planetary disks, the size of which would be related to the mass – or recent peak mass – of said planets. 2.8 Another aspect of planetary formation according to the OH would be that planetary density would be greatest at each extreme since the interior ones would not have had a chance to accumulate any atmospheric layering while those at the exterior would have had their atmospheric layering persistently torn off over time once they passed the median threshold. The division here though wouldn't be an absolutely symmetrical one – atmospheric layering once formed would linger due to the slower nature of the erosion process. As a planet reached the zenith of its mass it would accumulate atmosphere exponentially due to increasing surface area, but when it had finally passed this point it would still retain enough mass to carry this atmosphere forward – like how a body accelerated by a force can continue to arc upwards for a while even once the force has ceased to act on it. 2.9 The rotation and tilting of planets and their natural satellites would also be largely governed by the rotation of their star and by their original spiral trajectory. We would anticipate the greatest amount of consistency here to be in the direction of the orbits of the planets and less of conformity at the smaller scale of the moons and accretion disks. Utilizing the analogy of a tree once again – the smaller branches of the solar system would be the most malleable to the compulsions of external forces. 2.10 To summarize – in a solar system governed by the process theorized in the OH, we would expect to see every system of natural satellites conforming by in large to a statistical approximation of a Bell Curve in regards to their distributions of mass, and that said planets and their satellites would also be spaced at regular intervals. Granting an allowance for a vulnerability in their initial conditions to distortion though, we would not anticipate that a solar system governed by the OH would be completely orderly. In fact we would infer that a certain amount of disorder would have to prevail as is the case with any organic system. Comparing our Solar System 3.0 The dramatic relation between what the OH predicts and the appearance of our solar system should already be evident. Not just in terms of mass and size either – perhaps even more striking is the consistency with the idea of an evolution from small Terrestrial planet to large Jovian planet and then back again. The only truly problematic point we can see is in regards to Mars and the asteroid belt, but for the moment we would ask that this issue be set aside until section 5 of this article. Furthermore, the OH is not only successful at accounting for the properties of the planets themselves but also for their satellite systems – both in terms of moons and rings. We will now proceed to discuss in some detail each planet as an individual and in comparison with their neighbors, while continually referencing the predictions of the OH. Although it is not classified as a planet any longer, we will also discuss Pluto due to our impression that it is most likely the final remains of what was once a genuine planet. 3.1 Mercury presents a strong consistency with the OH. Small, moonless, and devoid of any significant atmosphere, all the basic characteristics that we would expect of a recently formed planet are found in it. In addition, the eccentricity of Mercury's orbit, as well as its peculiar rotation, both make more sense within the context of the OH than the ENH. In fact, orbital eccentricity should be highly unlikely within the framework of the ENH since all planetary bodies would have been formed from a single protoplanetary disk and so would all presumably have parallel concentric orbits that only gradually became eccentric as they expanded. Unless of course some manner of collision occurred but we would not want to rely on such ad hoc hypotheses unless absolutely necessary. Lastly something should be said about Mercury's relatively large core and thin mantle which have not been adequately explained. Within the context of the OH though it would seem to make perfect sense – the planetary cores, being formed in the initial stage of their respective planet's evolution, would be formed largely from the sun's ejected plasma, and their mantles only accumulated later. It would make sense then that a younger planet would have a proportionally larger mantle. 3.2 Venus is very different than Mercury and so with it we are challenged with having to explain how such a significant difference can occur between the two planets. Given that Venus is quite similar to its other neighbor Earth though, we should perhaps try to explain the difference here due to Mercury's peculiarities. These of course have been already mentioned – orbital and rotational eccentricity. Certainly they must have some effect on planetary formation but given the absence of research in this area due to its irrelevance within the framework of the ENH, we do not think there is much to draw on here. However, in its other respects, Venus quite obviously fits in well with the ideas of the OH. Its distance from the sun and its lack of satellites certainly offer no difficulties. What we would especially like to emphasize though is the nature of its atmosphere with regards to the Earth's atmosphere. It strikes us as very elegant way to connect them to simply say that the former is in an earlier stage of development than the latter, that Venus' atmosphere basically represents the condition of the Earth's prior to a cooling down period. Or more vividly – that Venus is an embryonic Earth. 3.3 Earth is the most unique planet in our solar system and any theory of planetary evolution must be prepared to address the features which set it apart. However most of its notable distinctions are concerned with matters of biology and chemistry that extend beyond the present area of concern and can at least be accounted for to some extent as a result of Earth's magnetosphere and its location in the temperate zone of the solar system. In terms of mass and satellites though Earth still conforms to what the OH expects. In fact, our knowledge of Earth's moon provides another example of evidence supporting the OH – it has been established that the Moon is actually receding from the Earth at a rate of 38mm a year. Of course it is our contention that this is actually the condition of all natural satellites for planetary bodies. And to anyone who objects to that we would ask – why should the relationship between the Earth and its Moon be considered anomalous? 3.4 Mars is the one planet we think that presents real difficulties for the OH – its low mass, low atmosphere, and orbital eccentricity to be specific. As we said previously though we will address the facts that challenge the OH in section 5. For now we will limit ourselves to illustrating supporting evidence. And in accordance with our notion of Venus as an embryonic Earth, Mars logically can be conceived of as a dead Earth. This is not a new idea admittedly but in contrast to previous speculations this conclusion is now supported within a more or less comprehensive theoretical context. In fact, if the OH is accepted then the idea becomes inescapable. Another consideration we would raise here before moving on is in regards to Mar's two moons. Again, this is consistent with the accumulation predicted by the OH. Furthermore the circular orbits of both moons would certainly support an argument against their having been captured at some point in Mars' history, if the idea of planetary capturing wasn't in itself completely absurd. Considering how enormous a challenge it is for engineers to aim artificial satellites into orbit around other planets, we would think that the fallacy of any capture based explanation for natural satellites would, on those grounds alone, be beyond debate. After all, what is the mathematical probability that one of only a few large objects in the solar system, formed according to the ENH within the solar accretion disk and as such already in a stable orbit, could first, be knocked out (Possible but very unlikely) and then miraculously fly so precisely into the orbital range of another planet that it could actually be caught? Or is the capture theory being perpetuated on the assumption that multiple planets are invading us from other solar systems (Which would still beg the question – how did they themselves get knocked out in the first place? Only the OH throws planets) We would suggest that someone should simulate such fantastic events within a computer model to determine their probability – we would guess though that the precise number will require a decimal place followed by a long string of zeros. 3.5 Asteroids rather than another planet provide the next orbital ring in the structure of the solar system. We would connect the challenge presented here with the difficulties of Mars though and so will address them together later. In the meantime we would like to bring up the well known fact that the largest of these asteroids, Ceres, was predicted by the Titius-Bode law. While we recognize the obvious defects in the ability of this law to account for the locations of the main bodies orbiting around the sun, something must be said to explain how it could even be partially effective. In the context of the OH a regular distribution of the planets makes perfects sense since they are all being generated by the same evolutionary stellar process – with regards to the ENH though such distribution is completely inexplicable. And we would in addition contend that the rotation of the supposed original accretion disk would have prevented the nebular material available from ever accreting into the immensely greater planetary objects that we find populating our solar system. 3.6 Jupiter offers a fresh set of novel planetary features to support the OH. First of all, there's the nascent system of rings. According to the OH we would naturally anticipate ring systems to develop on the larger planetary bodies – furthermore we would expect that such ring systems be proportional to the age of their planet, itself of course determinable by the planet's distance from the sun. So for Jupiter to not only have rings but rings that are clearly in an early stage of development (As compared to Saturn's especially) is highly significant. Then there's the large number of moons to consider. It's not just their number which is important though but the structure of their orbits that we should pay attention to because their orbital structure fairly mirrors the orbital structure of the solar system itself. The Galilean moons, to indulge in a little poetic license, are like the Jovian planets of Jupiter's own system. That the proportions of Jupiter's moons though don't exactly correspond to the planets should not greatly trouble us – variation here in the form of closer homogeneity is acceptable given the plausibility of a wide range of initial conditions for satellite formation. Even the existence of simultaneous prograde and retrograde as such isn't problematic. 3.7 Saturn represents for the OH the beginning of the downward slope in the life cycle of a planet. Having less mass but more moons and more prominent rings than Jupiter, Saturn might at first appear to be incompatible with the premises that have been advanced here. However, we believe that we can explain this two latter conditions in a satisfactory manner. What we would like to propose is that there is a momentum of accumulation occurring here, that although Saturn is losing mass it still retains enough mass to acquire new satellites and for its ring system to grow. Of course if we contrast our proposal here with what the ENH can provide, the result favors the OH. Assuming the capture theory were correct, it would make no sense that Saturn had so many more moons than Jupiter, or even that the character of their satellite systems would be so different. The only thing which would appear to account for that would be if each planet were generating said systems and that the uniqueness of these systems would then be a consequence of the uniqueness of their respective planets. While we do not claim that the OH as it is advanced so far, can explain every feature of our planets, we would contend that there is nothing which is better explained by the ENH. And of course it is always scientifically – if not morally – imperative to utilize a better hypothesis. 3.8 Uranus in our present understanding of it does not provide much in the way of unique information for the OH to address. Even the extreme nature of the axial tilt is not a real cause of wonder – already we have discussed how in their earlier stages of development planets are more susceptible to random influence. That the OH doesn't have a more deterministic mechanism to account for this obviously can't be a legitimate basis for objection. In fact, going back to the accretion disk premise of the ENH, if we accept that then we must introduce some wholly unknown event to account for why planetary axes would not be generally parallel. The rotation of an accretion disk would presumably impress itself on the planets to such a degree that they would all rotate along the same alignment. And as for Uranus' moons and ring systems – the slightly diminished condition of both again supports the OH. 3.9 Neptune only further serves to support the OH, although with even less of anything distinctly new than Uranus. The additionally decreased number of moons and even more decayed ring system are both thoroughly predictable by now. Neptune's orbital eccentricity is therefore perhaps the most notable thing for our consideration. Being so far from the Sun we would expect that the grip of the Sun's gravitation would be weakening – leaving Neptune to grow increasingly wild in its revolutions as it begins to teeter on the edge of escape. Noting that the formations of Uranus and Neptune have proven particularly difficult for contemporary models to explain, we would suggest that this has finally been dealt with. That such massive objects should arise from an area of a hypothetical accretion disk where little matter would have presumably existed, and that the inner planets would be so much smaller despite being located in an area where a vastly greater concentration of matter should have been, defies all logic. 3.10 Pluto presents its most interesting aspect for us in its relatively large number of moons. Why would Venus have no moons and Pluto five if the capture hypothesis were correct? Sure, we can introduce chance as an explanation here but in order to explain all the natural satellites orbiting bodies in the solar system, this would become absolutely ridiculous. The other prominent thing about Pluto that is consistent with the OH is its orbital eccentricity and inclination. Pluto, so distant it is nearly beyond the Sun's constraint, surely presents the perfect picture of an object about to be flung off into the celestial expanse. Of course, maybe it isn't the first planet of our solar system to have had to confront this fate. Six Steps Towards Verification 4.0 Since the real test of any true theory is not just to account for the present state of things but to predict future events, we will present some possible means of supporting the OH here through empirical and mathematical efforts. These will simply be listed in point form and offered as is with no attempt to justify them since their relevance is intended to be immediately obvious. We do not maintain that this will be a full list but still that a handful of positive results could in fact constitute sufficient proof. 4.1 Establish that the decrease in the sun's gravitational force would account for the proposed Jovian threshold – and that said threshold would be mathematically predicted in the vicinity of Jupiter, and not after Saturn. 4.2 Find evidence of nascent natural satellites emerging in their logical locations (Around Mercury, Venus, and perhaps Ganymede and Titan) 4.3 Discover a new planet forming between the Sun and Mercury. 4.4 Retrace the evolution of the trajectory of an asteroid or similar body to a stable orbit around a planet or around the sun itself – to so to speak, rewind the history of said body and locate their point of origin in an orbital path. 4.5 Provide an evolutionary account of how a planet evolves geologically, atmospherically, etc, through the various stages of the planetary cycle, how the variety in the distribution of elements transpires and also how the mechanisms of accumulation and erosion function. 4.6 Show that the relative position of the Earth has been changing with respect to the sun through an inspection of historical data. One Notable Difficulty 5.0 Arriving at last to the issue of Mars and the asteroid belt, we must reluctantly make recourse to an argument positing a catastrophic event. However we intend to assemble our contentions from a better reflection on the evidence, and we believe that we will be able to put forward an account that is sufficiently persuasive. We are aware of astronomer Heinrich Oblers' suggestion that the asteroid belt represents the fragments of a destroyed planet – an idea consistent with the Titius-Bode law but one with many obvious defects and as such not what we would endorse. We think Oblers' idea though was intuitively more correct than the currently prevailing theory that Jupiter's influence interfered with the formation of the planet that would have otherwise been anticipated. Specifically we think that the currently prevailing theory begs the question how the asteroids orbiting so relatively close to Mars would be prevented from forming a planet while Mars itself was unaffected? Aside from not adequately explaining the main asteroid belt, said theory also fails to explain the existence of the irregularly grouped asteroids – the Greeks, Trojans, and Hildae – which all testify to the occurrence of an irregular process. The sheer amount of irregularity in this region of the solar system argues to the probability of a chaotic and destructive event having transpired. 5.1 To show how this connects with the mystery of Mars we will turn to consider the abnormality of Mars' northern hemisphere. The lack of geological features there – in contrast with the southern hemisphere – at first inspired speculation that an impact event had occurred but this was soon discarded. However theorists working on the problem have recently conjectured that a very large object – something having a diameter perhaps from 1600 to 2700 km – could have been responsible for what is now observed in the northern hemisphere. We would like to consider the possibility that in the past Mars' experienced a collision with a large object that resulted in a glancing blow and that said object then more directly collided with the planet originally orbiting in the ring of the asteroid belt. Unlike Oblers – who thought that the asteroid belt represented the total debris of a destroyed planet – we would hypothesize that the asteroid belt in fact represents merely a fraction of the mass of the original objects that collided. Like the sort of wreckage one would expect from a minor car accident – shards of headlights and taillights and maybe some pieces of the vehicles' fenders. And to use another analogy – that the two planets then both veered off in new directions the way two glancing billiard balls would. Unlike others who would account for the absence on Mars of any significant atmosphere solely as a result of magnetospheric considerations, we would put forward the idea that the tidal forces of this collision also carried away much of the original Martian atmosphere. Additionally we would like to consider the possibility that this event interfered with the normal development of Mars' moons and so could be largely responsible for their irregular characteristics. 5.2 We appreciate the fact that the hypotheses we have offered here depend on a great deal of speculation. In considering the overall context though we think that speculation is significantly reduced within the framework of the OH when compared to how much speculation is required in the ENH. Also we would like to stress that there is nothing in the ENH which mechanistically accounts for any of the outstanding questions which the OH is unable by itself to provide answers for. If one theory is superior to another and there are no other options to entertain then logic dictates that we accept the superior theory at least on an operational basis. Of course adhering to a position of strict agnosticism is always possible but given that professional scientists have shown themselves capable of believing in the ENH we see no reason why they shouldn't prefer to believe in the OH. As we adhere to the principle of Occam's razor we ourselves feel justified in our choice between these two alternatives. 5.3 If our critics wish to point out that we used an idea that we ridiculed in section 3.4 we would respond that we have made a much more modest use of it than them and with much greater justification. Besides, they would criticizing us then by relying on our more fundamental ideas, which would ultimately only support our main arguments. Concluding Observations 6.0 The OH is not rigidly deterministic. If it were it would require the gradations between the planets to adhere to a perfectly harmonic spacing between each other and to vary in mass, volume, structure, and satellites, with perfect order. What the OH provides rather is the outline of a natural principle that is susceptible to external forces and random initial conditions. We think that an appropriate comparison would be to think of the OH again and how a tree grows. Although we generally expect from a tree that its largest branches will be its lowest, that the process of bifurcation will result in smaller appendages growing on larger ones, and that all the trees limbs will radiate in an even manner, we recognize that trees can be misshapen by external forces – twisted, warped, and so on – while also manifesting randomness due to purely intrinsic reasons. One can also look at how humans (Not to mention other animals) differ due to random genetic variation to appreciate the omnipresent influence of chaos. As such we have no qualms about advancing an astronomical theory which allows for chaos and is evolutionary in character. The mechanistic nature of the Nebular Hypothesis was a result of the mechanistic philosophy which dominated the era of its initial formulation. The ENH has only slightly modified this. Our theory meanwhile is more in line with the new outlook of science that first began to emerge after the work of Darwin. Accordingly we view our own hypothesis as a natural and necessary growth from its predecessors. 6.1 What is proposed by the ENH conversely depends on a pattern entirely absent from any other part of nature – a series of imperfectly concentric ellipses. The OH instead makes use of the logarithmic spiral – a pattern appearing in an incredible variety of natural occurrences and also in the realm of pure mathematics. Particularly we would like to point out that the structures of galaxies themselves conform to this spiral. And certainly we would anticipate that it would be more likely for nature to use one of its traditional mechanisms than to use another, completely new, mechanism in forming its solar systems. We would like to give nature credit for having some efficiency. 6.2 We obviously cannot claim that our theory has an answer for every question about our solar system but nevertheless we think that it constitutes an astronomical hypothesis of the highest order. Even if it were untrue – which again we can't sincerely entertain – this in itself would be an exceptional discovery. Because the question then would be how can an idea this elegant not have its basis in reality. But given the vastly more likely possibility – that it is true, if not in every detail then at least in essence – we think the illumination it brings to astronomy is not its most significant achievement. No. Given this theory's simplicity and blatancy – requiring very little astronomical knowledge by contemporary standards – the great question it poses is how so many generations of great minds could overlook something so obvious.