| home | part 1 | part 2 | part 3 | part 4 |
New ideas are always interesting and useful, the more so when there is the hope to acquire from them knowledge of practical bearing, capable of turning our philosophy, our very lives, radically for the better... Тhis new concept touches our simple lives, yet for those intrigued by the natural sciences, especially experts deeply engaged in the “eternal” questions of general geology and astronomy, it is all the more fascinating.
The problems to be faced by any theory for the formation of the Solar System
Any theory has to account for certain rather tricky facts about the Solar System. These are in addition to the obvious facts that the Sun is at the centre with the planets in orbit around it. There are 5 of these problem areas.
1. The Sun spins slowly and only has 1 percent of the angular momentum of the Solar System but 99.9 percent of its mass. The planets carry the rest of the angular momentum.
2. The formation of the terrestrial planets with solid cores.
3. The formation of the gaseous giant planets.
4. The formation of planetary satellites.
5. An explanation of Bode's law which states that the distances of the planets from the Sun follow a simple arithmetic progression.
All these problems are solved within the framework of "The New Theory" by Trunaev.
There are 5 theories which are still considered to be `reasonable' in that they explain many (but not all) of the phenomena exhibited by the solar system.
The Accretion theory
This assumes that the Sun passed through a dense interstellar cloud and emerged surrounded by a dusty, gaseous envelope. It thus separates the formation of the Sun from that of the planets thus losing problem 1.
The problem which remains is that of getting the cloud to form the planets. The terrestrial planets can form in a reasonable time but the gaseous planets take far too long to form. The theory does not explain satellites or Bode's law and must be considered the weakest of those described here.
The Protoplanet theory
This assumes that initially there is a dense interstellar cloud which will eventually produce a cluster of stars. Dense regions in the cloud form and coalesce; as the small blobs have random spins the resulting stars will have a low rotation rates. The planets are smaller blobs captured by the star. The small blobs would have higher rotation than is seen in the planets but the theory accounts for this by having the `planetary blobs' split to give a planet and satellites.
Thus many of the problem areas are covered but it is not clear how the planets came to be confined to a plane or why their rotations are in the same sense.
The Capture theory
This theory is a version of Jeans's theory in which the Sun interacts with a nearby protostar dragging a filament of material from the protostar. The low rotation speed of the Sun is explained as being due to its formation before the planets, the terrestrial planets are explained by collisions between the protoplanets close to the Sun and the giant planets and their satellites are explained as condensations in the drawn out filament.
The Modern Laplacian theory
Laplace in 1796 first suggested that the Sun and the planets formed in a rotating nebula which cooled and collapsed. It condensed into rings which eventually formed the planets and a central mass which became the Sun. The slow spin of the Sun could not be explained.
The modern version assumes that the central condensation contains solid dust grains which create drag in the gas as the centre condenses. Eventually, after the core has been slowed its temperature rises and the dust is evaporated. The slowly rotating core becomes the Sun. The planets form from the faster rotating cloud.
The Modern Nebula theory
Observations of very young stars indicate that they are surrounded by dense dusty disks. While there are still difficulties in explaining some of the problem areas outlined above, in particular ways to slow down the rotation of the Sun, it is believed that the planets originated in a dense disk which formed from material in the gas and dust cloud which collapsed to give the Sun. The density of this disk has to be sufficient to allow the formation of the planets and yet be thin enough for the residual matter to be blown away by the Sun as its energy output increased.
There have been many attempts to develop theories for the origin of the Solar System.
None of them can be described as totally satisfactory and it is possible that there will
further developments which may better explain the known facts.
Volcanic activity on other planets and their satellites, notably Jupiter’s Europa and Ganymede, the presence of magnetic fields on many “icy” moons of the giant planets – these are several of the current sensations exciting the scientific community, the more so by their incredible and inexplicable nature.
In 1977, an inhabitant of the little town of Lermontov (Stavropol region) formulated a new theory, which purported to explain these phenomena and other "eternal" questions and riddles of nature. More and more, serious scientists and interested amateurs alike, increasingly support his theory, finding in it the answers to many formerly unsolved puzzles in nature.
The author offers new ways to approach problems in CTS (controlled thermonuclear synthesis) and specifies real methods for forecasting and explaining earthquakes. He provides practical reasoning to refute skeptics who claim that these problems are basically unsolvable.
On the following page, two groups of questions are posed, delineated by their roles in the Earth - Solar system structure. These questions belong to a category of the fundamental problems. All currently extant theories try to solve these questions, nevertheless, the questions still remain unsolved.
It will be shown that these aforementioned questions can be resolved within the framework of the new concept. The proposed new theory does not contradict known physical laws and indeed is consistently considered within its framework.
New ideas are always interesting and useful, the more so when there is the hope to acquire from them knowledge of practical bearing, capable of turning our philosophy, our very lives, radically for the better. Тhis new concept touches our simple lives, yet for those intrigued by the natural sciences, especially experts deeply engaged in the “eternal” questions of general geology and astronomy, it is all the more fascinating.
Perhaps this new formulation about the ways celestial bodies develop may encourage scientists working in CTS to reevaluate the traditional approaches and search for fresh insights in plasma physics. This may be particularly fruitful in understanding the origin, causation, mechanisms, and natural development of plasma.
Using this proposed theory, geologists could change some of their basic ideas in geodynamics, geological history, and more. It affords both a general overview and a detailed plan of the movement of the Earth’s crust.Having a more reliable concept of why and where centers of mechanical pressure form in the Earth’s upper lithosphere layers would be invaluable in simplifying the problem of determining possible movements in the Earth’s crust and the consequent earthquakes.
This new, non-traditional theory offers solutions in both pure science and practical endeavors. It deals with the planet's development and the mechanisms by which mineral resources become concentrated, yet also simplifies the determination of bedding and search and forecast problems.
OF THE UNSOLVED QUESTIONS ON THE STRUCTURE OF
THE SOLAR SYSTEM
essentially soluble with the help of the "New Theory"
(Author: Evgeny Trunaev).
OF THE UNSOLVED QUESTIONS OF GEONOMY
Essentially soluble with the positions of "New Theory "
(Author: Evgeny Trunaev)
1. What caused the Earth to be differentiated into a number of separate layers (subcore, core, mantle, crust) which transmit seismic waves quite distinctly?
2. Which sources of energy create the Earth’s magnetic field?
3. Which sources of energy determine the thermal activity of the Earth, including volcanoes?
4. Why is there a relative equality in the occurrence of thermal flows on both the ocean floor and land, despite the distinctiveness of their structure and bedrock?
5. Which sources of energy determine the tectonic activity of the top layers of the Earth (crust, mantle)?
6. What has caused the formation of two types of the Earth’s crust - the oceanic ("basalt") and the continental ("granite")?
7. Why is there an ocean on the North Pole but land on the South Pole?
8. What causes "beam" convergence of the middle ocean ridges at the Earth's North pole but a "ring" stretch at the South pole?
9. What has caused linearly oriented mountain systems to be formed on both sides of the Pacific Ocean, which are subparallel to its coasts?
10. Why are mountain systems located mainly along one of the sides of the continental platforms?
11. What are the reasons for the greater length of the Arctic Ocean’s shelf zone, which has an Atlantic type coastal transition, and the smaller shelf of the other oceans, framed by similar coastal transitions?
12. Why do most continental platforms (continents) narrow towards the south (in the form of a wedge)?
13. Why is there seismic activity in the area of the modern Arctic Ocean, yet seismic inactivity, and an almost complete absence of modern volcanoes, on Antarctica?
14. What is the cause of equatorial asymmetry in the hemispheres: the north is "continental" (mainly land) and the south is "oceanic"?
15. What caused the development of two types of coastal transitions: the "Atlantic" and the "Pacific"?
16. Why is the process of mountain formation cyclical?
17. Why do a number of mountain areas have "fan-shaped" folds?
18. What are the reasons "diagonal" type fractures formed on the continents, yet arc-shaped, transformed fractures on the ocean floor?
19. What caused the formation of ridges in the middle of the ocean floor and why are they different from continental mountain systems (considering material composition, thermal flow, etc.)?
20. What is the cause of the S-shaped axial lines of the mid-ocean floor ridges and the axes of some continents?
21. Why are the main deposits of coal located in the Northern Hemisphere?
22. Why do the paleomagnetic vectors of sediments of various ages have
1. E.M.Trunaev. Forces and Laws Determining the Movement of the Earth's Continents. ВИНИТИ. М., 1992, N 2807-В92.
2. E.M.Trunaev. A Non-traditional Approach to the Problem of Development of the Continental Structures. ВИНИТИ. М., 1992, N 2808-В 92.
3. E.M.Trunaev. New Insights on the Problem of Continental Platform Formation. ВИНИТИ . М., 1992, N 2806-В 92.
4. E.M.Trunaev. The Laws of Formation and Movement of the Continents. "Разведчик недр", N 3-4 1993. N 1-2, 1994. N 3-4, 1994. ИПК "Московская правда".
5. E.M.Trunaev. The Strange Theory. "Природа и человек", N 5. М., 1993..
6. E.M.Trunaev. The Geochronological Diagram as a Method of Decision for the Problems of Geological History. From the collection " Cycles of Natural Processes, Dangerous Phenomena and Ecological Forecasting ". Issue 2. РАЕН/ М. 1992,
8. Trunaev Е.M. THE FORMATION OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM FROM ENDO-GALACTIC VORTEX. // Problems of space, time, gravitation. The 4th International conference . С. Петербург, 1997.
9. E.M.Trunaev. Origin of Magnetic Fields of Celestial Bodies from Based on the Hypothesis of the Formation of the Solar System from a Centripetal Vortex. // The thesis of the reports at the International scientific congress - Fundamental problems of natural science. С Петербург, 1998.
10. E.M.Trunaev. To the Question of the Reality of Geodynamic Cycles. // The Thesis of the reports 6-th International conferences " Cycles of a nature and society" г. Ставрополь, 1998.
11.E.M. Trunaev. Introduction to a New Geodynamics, Based on the Concept of Cosmogenic Vortexes. //Геоинформатика. N 2. 1999г. РАЕН. Москва.
We would like to hear your
comments or suggestions on improving this page.
Please e-mail comments or suggestions to:
© 1999-2012 Trunaev E.M.. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission of Trunaev is prohibited.