Why the Accretion Model Doesn’t Add Up
According to traditional views, our solar system was born when some other nearby star exploded, and the shockwave from that supernova caused the dust and gases within a nebula to compress and condense into the beginnings of our solar system. The heavier elements within the nebula had the most gravitational force, and they attracted other heavier elements, which in time collided into each other, and accreted into the solid planets, moons, and asteroids. The sun and the gas planets took a lot longer to form, but the conventional theory holds that they accreted in the same manner as the solid planets, and once they were completed, they were much larger than the solid planets, as a nebula contains a lot more gas than dust.
There are two problems with this theory. Despite it being the theory we were all taught in school, and in just about every documentary ever on the formation of the solar system, it has never been observed. We obviously can’t travel back in time to see how our own solar system formed, and we’ve yet to see another solar system forming within the range of our telescopes, so the accretion model remains unproven.
The second problem with the accretion model is that it is highly complex and highly unlikely. The physics of it only accounts satisfactorily for the formation of minor planets, such as Pluto and Ceres. It makes sense that thousands of such “dwarf planets” should form. What does not make sense is that they should collide with each other, and in the process fuse into larger planets.
There would certainly be collisions, but these collisions would be occurring at thousands of miles per hour, and they would be occurring between planets of roughly equal size. Under those conditions, any collision would most likely result in the destruction of both planets. There is no reason to assume one planet could even survive the collision, let alone absorb the other, unless one of the planets was much bigger than the other, to begin with. And there’s no reason why any of the planets should be significantly larger than the others: given that an equal amount of time has passed for all the newly forming bodies (and a roughly equal distribution of stellar nebula material), they should all be about the same size.
The accretion model also requires the planets to have highly eccentric (elliptical) orbits during their proto-planet phase, and this is hard to square with the observable planet’s currently stable and decidedly un-eccentric orbits. Several hypotheses have been advanced to explain this problem away, including “gravitational drag” and “gravitational wakes” created by smaller bodies, but no substantial experimental evidence exists supporting either idea.
The Solar Fission Theory of Planetary Formation
According to this theory, chiefly championed by the late Dr. Tom Van Flandern (Ph.D. Astronomy, Yale University), the planets were actually formed when the sun spun them off from itself in the early days of the solar system.
According to the fission theory, a star forms when dust begins to condense into a single large clump in a proto-planetary disk, and grows until it begins spinning, condenses and eventually ignites into a star. These young suns are spinning so fast that they eventually fling off large clumps of themselves as planets, which then spiral out from the star until they achieve stable orbits and begin to cool.
Van Flandern states that the larger gas giant worlds would spin off first, in relative twin pairs, and generate multiple small rocky moons. The last planets would be the inner rocky “terrestrial planets” like Venus and Earth, and they would spin off single large moons from their own molten planetary spheres.
The fission theory makes far more sense because it is consistent with most observations of our own solar system and others we have recently discovered. Only the fission theory can explain why all the planets are in the so-called “plane of the ecliptic”, the equatorial plane of the Sun. If the accretion model was correct, planets would form all over the place and have orbits at all different angles to the Sun.
It also explains why the planets have 98% of the spin energy in the solar system, but only 0.002% of the mass. The Sun simply “gave away” the vast majority of its spin energy to the planets in this birthing process, this being the price to pay for stability in energetic output.
It would also explain why other solar systems have “Hot Jupiters,” gas giant planets of Jupiter mass (or larger) that orbit their parent stars even more closely than Mercury orbits our Sun. These “Hot Jupiters” alone are considered impossible by the standards of proof of the accretion model.
The fission theory also brings back another nearly forgotten scientific controversy from the past, and places it in a new context. That controversy is “Bode’s Law”; and the new context is the “Exploded Planet Hypothesis” (EPH).
In 1772, an astronomer named Johann Elert Bode showed that the planet’s orbits should fit into a specific, resonant mathematical pattern. Upon comparing the projections with the actual distances of the planets then known, Bode found that all of them, Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn — fit the predicted pattern. The theory was given a huge boost in 1781, when Uranus was discovered exactly where Bode predicted it would be.
The only problem was that according to Bode’s Law, there should have been a fifth planet in the gap between Mars and Jupiter. However, this gap happened to coincide exactly with the location of the asteroid belt. In 1801, the dwarf planet Ceres was discovered in the belt, again exactly where Bode had predicted. It didn’t take long after that for Heinrich Wilhelm Matthaus Olbers to suggest that the asteroid belt contained the exploded remains of a missing planet, which he named “Phaeton”.
The Exploded Planet Hypothesis (EPH) went down like a lead balloon with the scientific community, which seems to reject catastrophic scenarios as a matter of course. Unfortunately, the EPH caused Bode’s Law to fall into disfavour as well, and it was further discredited in 1846 when Neptune was discovered, in an orbit that deviated from Bode’s formula by 29%. However, the issue was further complicated by the discovery of Pluto, which was found in a location almost exactly where Bode’s Law would have predicted an eighth planet.
Even though Bode’s theory had proven to be 88.88% correct, it disappeared from scientific journals for nearly eighty years. Van Flandern incorporated Bode’s Law into his Fission theory regardless, reasoning that some ancient encounter with a wandering planet could’ve pushed Neptune out of its original orbit. Such encounters were certainly far more common in the early days of the solar system, so this is hardly far-fetched. Van Flandern also asserted that Mercury was not a planet, but rather an escaped moon of Venus, and that Mars was not a planet, but the remnant moon of the planet Maldek, which exploded to form the asteroid belt.
Van Flandern found that long period comets (such as Halley’s) on long elliptical orbits that take them outside the solar system most of the time, provided further support for the EPH. Van Flandern was able to trace the trajectories of most such comets back to a common origin point: within the asteroid belt. This would make sense if a planet between Mars and Jupiter had exploded with sufficient force to throw shards of itself outside the solar system.
Van Flandern has argued that there are three mechanisms by which a planet could explode: phase changes; natural fission reactions; and gravitational heat energy. All three mechanisms are supported by peer-reviewed science journals. In Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets, Van Flandern pointed out that there are more than 100 separate lines of evidence listed in support of the EPH, and only two that seem, on the surface anyway, to contradict it.
More Bizarre Theories of How the Asteroid Field was Formed
The Nibiru theory holds that there is a tenth planet in our solar system: Nibiru, or Planet X. Nibiru’s orbit is a long flat ellipse, that takes it far outside the solar system most of the time, only bringing it close to Earth once every 3,600 years. Nibiru is thought to be Earthlike, only much larger, and inhabited by an intelligent extraterrestrial species, the Annunaki.
Over 4 billion years ago, there was no planet occupying Earth’s current orbit. There was Mercury, Venus, Mars, and then a large watery planet called Maldek or Tiamat, between Mars and Jupiter. As Nibiru did a “fly-by” of the inner planets, it passed close enough to Maldek for the gravitational stresses to crack Maldek. On its next fly-by, one of Nibiru’s moons struck the already weakened Maldek, and broke it in half.
The first half of Maldek shattered, but stayed in its original orbit, becoming what is now the Asteroid Belt, between Mars and Jupiter. The second half of Tiamat stayed in one piece, and was knocked into a new orbit between Venus and Mars, becoming the Earth. One of Nibiru’s moon’s (Kingu) was gravitationally captured by the newly formed Earth, and became our Moon. Millions of tons of water from both halves of Maldek were flung into space, and froze to become many of the comets that now wander our solar system.
This theory of the Earth’s origin explains why the Pacific Ocean is so large — there is no land on that side of the planet at all — and why the crust under the Pacific is so thin. There is no other logical reason why all of Earth’s land masses should form on one side of the planet, rather than being evenly distributed. But if the Pacific Ocean is the side of the planet that split off from Tiamat, it makes sense that there would be no land masses there.
The Nibiru theory sounds like science-fiction, but Zeccharia Sitchin devoted his entire life to proving the existence of Nibiru, and the Annunaki, and wrote a dozen books on the subject. Today, his ideas are taken seriously by writers/researchers such as Lloyd Pie, and Michael Tellinger. The video below is the best I have ever found on the subject. If you are sceptical about Nibiru, it might just make a believer of you.
In 1992, Robert Harrington, and Tom Van Flandern, of the Naval Observatory, working with all the information they had at hand, published their findings and opinion, that there was indeed a ninth planet (not counting Pluto, as Pluto was demoted from planet status in 2006), orbiting below the plane of the ecliptic.
Harrington invited Sitchin (having read his books, and translations of the Enuma Elish) to a meeting at his office, where they correlated the new findings with the ancient records. Harrington acknowledged that all of his information agreed with all the details recorded in the Enuma Elish (ancient Mesopotomian stone tablets on which the Biblical story of Genesis is based) and the map he had drawn for Nibiru’s orbital path was almost identical to Sitchin’s. Both Harrington and Sitchin agreed about Nibiru’s current probable location.
In 2003, the planet Sedna was discovered. Sedna is a red dwarf with a highly elliptical orbit that carries it within 76 AU (Astronomical Units) of the Sun at aphelion; and 936 AU away from the Sun at perihelion. It takes 11, 400 years to complete one orbit. While the existence of Sedna certainly doesn’t prove the existence of Nibiru, it certainly proves that planets like Nibiru, (with very long, very elliptical orbits) can exist.
Maldek was destroyed in an Interplanetary War
If you visit the website, The Legend of Maldek, you will find over 20 different accounts of how Maldek was destroyed. A few of these accounts agree with each other; however, most do not, and trying to reconcile them all is not only impossible, it’s as confusing as hell.
After the Nibiru theory, the next most likely one comes from a Youtuber named Kinninigan, and you can view his presentation here:
Kinninigan claims he spent 7 years researching his theory, which is a significant enough length of time to make it stand apart from the rest. Plus, it’s broadly similar to the Nibiru theory. In Kinninigan’s theory, the planet Venus did not originate within our solar system. It began its existence as a giant comet the Reptoids launched at Maldek to wipe out the humanoid species living there. On its way through the solar system, Venus passed close enough to Uranus to push it on its side (Uranus rotates at nearly a 90 degree angle to the plane the rest of the planets roatate on); and close enough to Mars to rip the atmosphere off it. In the Nibiru theory, it’s Nibiru that does these things.
The rest of Kinninigan’s theory is broadly the same as the Nibiru theory, except that in this version, it’s Venus, rather than Nibiru, that shatters Maldek.
Kinninigan’s theory does not account for where the Moon came from, but it does account for why Venus spins in the opposite direction to most other planets in the solar system. Kinninigan’s video also contains an intriguing image of what the Earth would look like without water: like a huge egg with one side of it caved in. This is because the Earth was unable to reform into a perfect sphere after it split off from Maldek; it only appears as a sphere because the oceans fill in and cover up the deep dents and cracks in the Earth’s crust.
The Reptoids are fairly popular culprits for the destruction of Maldek. I’ve read two accounts of them piloting a “Death Star” into the solar system and shattering Maldek with an energy beam. Another theory holds that a “Death Star Cannon” was built on Maldek itself, but got out of control and destroyed the planet it was built to defend.
After the Reptoids, the Pleiadians, and then the Sirians (from the star constellation Sirius), are the species most commonly blamed for the destruction of Maldek, and they are chiefly thought to have done so through the use of nuclear weapons. Other theories hold that the Maldekkians destroyed themselves in a nuclear war or a nuclear accident. The strangest theory of all is that Maldek was destroyed by a psychic attack.
To the best of my knowledge, there is no evidence to support any of these theories, other than the Nibiru and Venus ones, and the evidence that supports those is circumstantial — not enough to constitute proof in a court of law.
However, as I argue in The Mysteries of Mars, there is substantial evidence that Mars was once home to a technologically advanced civilisation, and that that civilisation was destroyed by nuclear weapons. As Mars was originally the moon of Maldek, it follows that it would’ve been colonised by whatever species inhabited Maldek; and it also follows that whatever species destroyed Maldek (assuming it was destroyed deliberately), would also want to wipe out the colony on Mars.
I believe our solar system was most likely created by a combination of the Solar Fission theory and the Nibiru theory. The Solar Fission theory is based on more solid science than the Accretion theory; and the Nibiru theory is based on the Enuma Elish, the earliest historical record ever found (as far as I know). Zeccharia Sitchin dedicated his entire life to proving the existence of Nibiru, and his findings are supported by professional astronomers (Van Flandern and Harrington).
However, there is also strong evidence that life on Mars was wiped out by nuclear weapons (see Mysteries of Mars), so the possibility that the destruction of Maldek was also an act of war, cannot be ruled out. I simply don’t have enough pieces of the puzzle to say for sure what destroyed Maldek, but I am reasonably certain that we are now inhabiting half of it (the Earth); while the other half is in pieces around Mars and Jupiter (the Asteroid Belt).
You might also enjoy: