THE INFINITE UNIVERSE (Part 7, Chapter 7-2)
© Eit Gaastra
CONTENTS of this website (bottom of this webpage)

Part 7 (chapters 7-1 and 7-2) presents dark matter objects as components in star formation and solar system formation.

Dark matter binary systems
Many stars in the neighborhood of our Solar System are part of binary systems. With dark matter objects descending from stars the dark matter objects therefore also may be often in binary systems.
And: galaxies too are often part of binary systems, as well as Seyferts (4-3) and, perhaps, also clusters.
Matter attracts other matter and starts swirling around each other, often in binary systems (4-3). The same may be the case with dark matter objects.

Thus many binary dark matter objects may have been circling around each other in binary systems for very long times and may have approached each other more and more until the objects circle in synchronous rotation: their orbiting period is the same as their rotation period. Thus the rotation periods of the partners of a binary dark matter system may be the same as their mutual orbiting period and they rotate in the same direction.

[September 5 2006: Big bang astronomers have discovered an approximately seven-Jupiter-mass companion to an object that is itself only twice as hefty. Both objects have masses similar to those of extra-solar giant planets, but they are not in orbit around a star - instead they appear to circle each other. The existence of such a double system puts strong constraints on big bang formation theories of free-floating planetary mass objects431.
Binary planets is what you expect within an infinite universe where dark matter objects (single planets) are around a lot and have plenty of time to become gravitationally attached to another (single) object. End September 5 2006]

[May 2003: Orbiting periods can be very small: Nova V1500 Cygni 1975 is member of a binary system with an orbital period of about 3 hour8.
RS Canum Venaticorum (RS CVn) stars are in binary systems. A typical orbital period is about seven days; however, periods range from 0.5 days to a few months. In most RS CVn systems the stars are synchronously locked by tidal forces, so that the rotational period of each is equal to the orbital period8. End May 2003]

When the orbit periods and the rotation periods of dark matter partners are the same and if they are in the magnitude of the sidereal rotation periods of the planets in our Solar System then: the partners of the binary system are relatively close to each other and may remain a binary system when entering the Solar System, i.e. it may not be likely that one partner of the binary system starts orbiting the Sun while the other leaves the Solar System or falls on the Sun. When the dark matter is a mono system (one planet) it may be more likely that it will either escape the Solar System or fall on the Sun than that it starts rotating stable and enduring around the Sun.

Similar sidereal rotation periods
Thus binary systems may be quite abundant in solar systems and hence may make us look different at the following table of our Solar System:
1024 kg
Eccentricity Inclination
to Ecliptic
Mercury 58.7 days 0.33 0.0 0.206 7.000
Venus 243 days 4.87 177.4 0.007 3.39
Earth 23h 56m 5.97 23.5 0.017 0.00
Mars 24h 37m 0.64 25.2 0.093 1.85
Jupiter 9h 50m 1900 3.1 0.048 1.31
Saturn 10h 14m 569 26.7 0.056 2.49
Uranus 17h 14m 87 98 0.047 0.77
Neptune 16h 3m 103 29 0.009 1.77
Pluto 6.4 days 0.01 122 0.249 17.15
* Obliquity is defined as the inclination of the equator to the orbital plane. Obliquities greater than 900 imply retrograde rotation.
Planets that formerly were dark matter binary systems may be, according to their sidereal rotation period:
  1. the Earth and Mars
  2. Jupiter and Saturn
  3. Uranus and Neptune
If we imagine the planets coming in as binary systems with partners that rotate around their axis with the same period and hence have the same sidereal rotation periods then it may be very logic that by now the Earth has a shorter sidereal period than Mars, Jupiter has a shorter period than Saturn and Neptune has a shorter period than Uranus, because the rotation periods of planets with more mass will be slowed down slower by the Sun than their binary partner with relatively less mass (and with a lower density, thus being stronger influenced by inertial gravity forces, 3-2, 3-2).

The fact that Uranus slowed down relatively strong (compared to the Earth relative to Mars and Jupiter relative to Saturn) while not having much less mass than Neptune may be due to the fact that in spite of Mars and Saturn Uranus is the lighter binary partner that lies closer to the Sun and therefore may be slowed down relatively stronger. And: Uranus may be slowed down stronger as well because it rotates retrograde.

More similarities and magnetic fields
Thus the difference between mass-magnitudes of the binary partners may account for the difference between their sidereal rotation periods and it may account too for the differences in eccentricities of the partners: the Earth has a lower eccentricity than Mars and also Jupiter and Neptune have lower eccentricities than their lighter partners Saturn and Uranus.
The fact that Uranus and Neptune have a relatively big difference in eccentricity compared to Jupiter and Saturn may be due again to the fact that Uranus is the lighter partner that lies closer to the Sun. The relatively high eccentricity of Mars relative to the Earth may be due to the Earth having almost ten times as much mass than Mars.
[February 2004: The heavier partner adjusts itself most strongly to a certain orbit around the Sun, meanwhile the lighter partner adjusts itself (more) to the heavier partner (than the other way round), resulting in a larger eccentricity for the lighter partner. End February 2004]
The chemical composition and internal structures of Uranus and Neptune resemble each other8, which may be due to the possible fact that they once were a binary system (perhaps once Uranus and Neptune were two stars that originated from the same gas cloud, very long ago, 7-1).
Also Jupiter and Saturn have chemical and physical characteristics that resemble8 and the same goes for the Earth and Mars8.

And: Neptune's magnetic axis, like Uranus, differences very much from the planets rotation axis8. Uranus/Neptune may have come swirling into the Solar System with their binary plane much inclined to the ecliptic plane. Tidal forces may have been working strongly on the outer regions of the planets and changed the direction of rotation of the outer layers while the much more heavy inner cores of the planets kept their original rotation axis, hence: a dynamo that causes a magnetic field. This may be the reason why in general magnetic axis and rotation axis of planets are tilted.

Perhaps the Sun has a magnetic field by the same reasons because of the gravitational forces by the inner core of the Milky Way or because of the gravitational forces of the planets working on the outer regions of the Sun.

(Of course, in the case of Uranus and Neptune, all kind of things can have happened, like Jupiter passing Uranus at a close distance when entering the Solar System, hence making Uranus rotate retrograde.)
(Magnetic fields of planets (and stars) may also be due to planets originating from (different layers of) rotating dark matter, 7-1.)

All planets tend to rotate more and more synchronous corresponding to their sidereal period around the Sun, like the Moon did in its orbit around the Earth (paleontological studies of fossilized corals, which lived 108 years ago, show that the Earth has been rotating faster: 400 “days” in a year8).
The theory is now: because the Moon rotates around the Earth, the Earth is slowed down and therefore the Moon slowly goes away from the Earth8.
But: the Earth may be slowed down by the Sun too and the Moon may be attracted more and more by the Sun, if we have another Solar model, i.e. if the Earth came with Mars into the Solar System (and perhaps with the Moon as well).
[May 2003: Last year I found that professor Ghosh3 too explains the retardation of the Earth's rotation with the Sun causing retardation by inertial forces. End May 2003]

[September 7 2005: Whether it is the Moon or the Sun that is slowing down the Earth's rotation, such slowing down may explain why the inner core of the Earth rotates faster than the outer core, as was measured recently353. The inner core has a higher density and therefore may be slowed down less (3-2). End September 7 2005]

Disrupting forces
If a binary system like Earth/Mars, Jupiter/Saturn or Uranus/Neptune comes swirling into the Solar System then: the closer the binary is to the Sun the less the binary system will disrupt itself, or rather: the further the binary system is from the Sun the bigger the distance between the two binary partners because of their former orbiting velocities (which are relatively more powerful when the binary system is further away from the Sun).

Therefore it may not be a coincidence that the distance between the Earth and Mars (78 x 106 km) divided by the average distant of Earth + Mars from the Sun (189 x 106 km) is about the same (0.41) as the divisions:

(distance between Jupiter and Saturn)/(average distance Jupiter-Saturn to Sun) = (649 x 106 km)/(1103 x 106 km) = 0.59
(distance between Uranus and Neptune)/(average distance Uranus-Neptune to Sun) = (1626 x 106 km)/(3684 x 106 km) = 0.44
The fact that Jupiter and Saturn are relatively further away from each other (0.59 versus 0.41 and 0.44) may be due to the fact that their rotation periods are shorter (about 10 hours) and thus their original mutual orbiting velocities were bigger and thus the original mutual orbiting velocities that disrupted them were stronger.
The fact that the Earth and Mars are relatively closer to each other (0.41 versus 0.44 and 0.59) may be due to the fact that their rotation periods are longer (about 24 hours), and so their original mutual orbiting velocities were smaller.
(With binary systems of stars it is observed that: the closer the stars are to each other, the greater their Doppler redshift16, or: the greater their orbiting velocities. And so: the closer the planets originally were, the bigger their orbiting velocities have been and the shorter their rotation periods.)
Age of our Solar System
The “age” of our Earth is the time since the Earth cooled down so much that rocks became solid (and hence make it possible for us to measure their solidification date by radioactive decay methods8).
This may mean that the Earth is orbiting the Sun much less then 4.6 billion years, i.e. if the Earth's (and Moon's) crust solidified before the Earth came into the Solar System.

[May 2003: Of course, as mentioned in 7-1, if the Earth is an old star then the Earth is extremely old. End May 2003]

Biological DNA-life may have developed itself before the Earth entered the Solar System with the internal heat of the Earth as energy source (and thus we may find very old DNA-life fossils).

But one may also argue: when the Earth and Mars were a binary system entering the Solar System at a certain time then perhaps very strong tidal forces may have worked on the Earth when the Earth entered the Solar System and these tidal forces may have caused the Earth's crust (and the Moon's crust) to melt (and perhaps even melt the inside of the Earth by tidal forces) which would bring us back to 4.6 billion years. (The heat inside the Earth may be due to decay of heavy (heavier than iron) metals too, 5-2.)

If we know how fast the planets enlarge their sidereal rotation periods (and if we are able to connect all kind of data like mass, density, distance, etc. in a model) then we may find the moment the Sun “met” the dark matter cloud with our planets, i.e. by finding the moment the binary partners had equal rotation periods, i.e. rotation period Earth = rotation period Mars, rotation period Jupiter = rotation period Saturn and rotation period Uranus = rotation period Neptune. (Of course, our planets may originate from different dark matter clouds as well and thus binaries may have come into our Solar System at different times.)
Astor and Roid clashing
Imagine that the Earth and Mars once were a triple system: Earth, Mars and planet Roid that entered our Solar System and started orbiting the Sun as shown in Fig. 7-3-I (or perhaps rather: the Earth and Roid as a binary system, with the Earth and Mars as a binary system within this Earth-Roid-binary system). Roid orbited the Sun where now the asteroid belt is.
Imagine too that another planet Astor came swirling into the Solar System with Venus, as a binary, as drawn in Fig. 7-3-I: both planets rotate retrograde. Venus passes the Sun between the Earth's orbit and the Sun and Venus starts orbiting the Sun with retrograde rotation (around its axis). Astor passes the Sun on the other side and orbits the Sun retrograde meanwhile slowly attracting Roid and vice verse until the two planets clash.
The clash that may have caused the asteroid belt.
Figure 7-3-I
Astor and Venus entering the Solar System.
The clash may have caused the asteroid belt, Pluto and Charon and Mercury (Mercury would be the heavy inner core of Astor or Roid). The clash then may have been as drawn in Fig. 7-3-II. After the clash Astor ought to have passed Venus, the Earth or Mars quite close in order to get its orbit between Venus' orbit and the Sun or perhaps it is more likely that Astor has left the Solar System (see Fig. 7-3-III) and that Roid has become Mercury (also because Mercury does not rotate retrograde).
A clash may have caused the asteroid belt.
Figure 7-3-II
A clash may have caused the asteroid belt.
A way Roid may have become Mercury.
Figure 7-3-III
A way Roid may have become Mercury.
Such a clash may explain: the existence of the asteroid belt, retrograde rotation of Venus and Pluto, the strong eccentricities of Mercury and Pluto, the strong inclination of Mercury and Pluto, the fact that Mercury is very massive for such a small planet (part of the less massive mantle has been ripped of by the clash), the high percentage of metals of Mercury, the long sidereal rotation period of Venus (Venus' rotation is slowed down quicker because of its retrograde rotation), the almost synchronous rotation by Mercury (because of the clash; a sidereal rotation period of 58.7 days compared to a sidereal period of 88 days), the slow sidereal rotation period of Pluto, the little mass of Pluto, the obliquity of Mercury (0.0 degrees) and the clash may have brought our Moon to existence, as well as moons and debris circling around the Jovian planets and the two pieces of debris circling Mars.
[May 2003: Shepard and Jewitt recently have discovered many small new moons orbiting Jupiter retrogate69. Explaining such retrogate velocities is a severe problem for conventional astronomy. The (presumed) clash between Astor and Roid may solve this problem. End May 2003]
[April 12 2006: According to current big bang models of planetary formation, Mercury has too much mass. A new explanation proposes that Mercury was created from a much larger parent planet that collided with a giant asteroid 4.5 billion years ago. Astronomers from the University of Bern ran various scenarios modeling early versions of Mercury412. End April 12 2006]

Perhaps one of the two planets that clashed, or both, had a lot of water; that would explain the amounts of water on Pluto and the moons of Jupiter. If Pluto is a remain of the outer part of planet Astor or Roid then that would explain the low density of Pluto.
Pluto and Charon may be remains of Astor and/or Roid; after the clash they didn't have a strong rotation by themselves and became tidally locked (like two other potential remains of the clash: Mercury and our Moon; our Moon which is tidally locked with our Earth and Mercury which is almost tidally locked with the Sun).

If Pluto and Charon are remains of the clash then it is logic that they are relatively close to each other. Only some satellites of Mars and Jupiter orbit their parent planets faster than the parent planets rotate. This may be because Mars and Jupiter are the two planets that would have been most close to the point of the clash (and further away from the Sun), and so those planets had more chance meeting a piece of high speed debris.

The asteroids in the asteroid belt have S-type character (closer to Mars) or a C-type character8 (closer to Jupiter); the two types of asteroids may be due to two planets clashing.
Pluto has a lot of carbon and so do the C-type asteroids, which may be due to their (same) ancestor planet.
Also the Haley-comet has a lot of carbon, thus possibly having the same origin.

[January 2005: Also big bang astronomers speculate about the evolution of Pluto and Charon with a giant impact in the past275. End January 2005]
[July 25 2005: The star BD +20 307 is shrouded by a very dusty environment. Big bang astronomers believe that the warm dust is from recent collisions of rocky bodies at distances from the star comparable to that of the Earth from the Sun343. So I am not the only one thinking about the possibility that rocky bodies can clash. End July 25 2005]

Iron meteorites have densities ranging from 7500 to 8000 kg/m3. The solid inner core of the Earth has densities around 13,000 kg/m3. Iron meteorites thus may originate from dark matter that clashed, maybe from Astor clashing with Roid.
[March 2004: Of course, if dark matter objects that later become planets or moons can come into our Solar System out of interstellar space and swing themselves around our Sun or around a planet then small bodies like asteroids, comets and meteorites may come out of interstellar space too. With space probes 3 comets have been watched closely so far. All 3 comets are completely different. This is no surprise when comets can come out of interstellar space. End March 2004]

[September 10 2005: When Deep Impact smashed into comet Tempel 1 on July 4, 2005, it released ingredients. These ingredients include many standard comet components, such as silicates, or sand. But there were also surprise ingredients, such as clay and chemicals in seashells called carbonates. These compounds were unexpected because they are thought to require liquid water to form359.
Perhaps these surprise ingredients can be seen as evidence for clashing planets producing comets, asteroids and dust. If so then it is no surprise that comets and asteroids are more alike than previously expected360 and why the “mini planet” Ceres in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter shares characteristics of the rocky, terrestrial planets like Earth361. End September 10 2005]

More impacts by the Astor-Roid clash
The clash may also explain the strong meteorite bombardment that happened billions of years ago in our Solar System and caused so many craters on, for example, our Moon and Mercury.
Planets closer to the Sun, Venus and the Earth, would have collected less debris: those planets have less mass and have to compete with the Sun.
Mars has two pieces of debris, which is probably due to Mars having more chances to collect debris being so close to the asteroid belt.
The debris that circles around the Jovian planets had more chance to be picked up by those planets, for the planets have more mass and the debris that was falling away from the Sun was slowed down by the gravity of the Sun (where the debris falling towards the Sun was speeded up).
Our Moon may originate from the mantle of Mercury, especially when Mercury has passed the Earth at a close distance as shown in Fig 7-3-II.
Mercury has three times the number of craters 10 km or larger in diameter than the Moon has8. If Mercury and the Moon originated in the Astor-Roid-clash then it may be logic that Mercury took more and bigger pieces debris with it (because the mass of Mercury is 5 times the mass of the Moon), which would explain the higher number of large craters on Mercury compared to the Moon (and the Earth competed with the Moon, so much debris attached to the Moon may have gone to the Earth).
Perhaps there has been a clash between planets at 50,000 AU as well, resulting in the Oort cloud. Also the Kuiper belt beyond the orbit of Neptune may be a remnant of clashing planets or clashing debris (that came from the Astor-Roid-clash).[September 10 2005: Three objects nearly Pluto-sized or larger were recently found in the Kuiper belt. All three are in elliptical orbits tilted out of the plane of the solar system. Astronomers think that these orbital characteristics may mean that they were all formed closer to the sun362. End September 10 2005] (Perhaps the Oort cloud is also due to the clash between Astor and Roid.)

[June 2004: The Kuiper belt too may have come to existence because a group of dark matter objects (which may have originated from a clash between two larger dark matter objects somewhere in interstellar space) came out of interstellar space and started orbiting the Sun. Right now the Kuiper belt is a mystery for big bang astronomers160. End June 2004]

[January 2005: Also big bang astronomers speculate about the evolution of the Kuiper belt objects with a giant impact in the past275. End January 2005]

[September 5 2005: A big bang researcher from the University of Toronto has found unexpectedly young material in meteorites, challenging big bang theories about early events in the formation of the Solar System. A paper published in Nature reports that key minerals called chondrules have been found in meteorites that formed much later than the initial nebula that, according to big bang astronomy, collapsed to form our Solar System. Instead, these chondrules were probably created when two newly forming planets smashed together, the researcher reports. The researcher thinks the chondrules were formed by a giant plume of vapour produced when two planetary embryos, somewhere between moon-size and Mars-size, collided. Within big bang astronomy the evolution of the solar system has traditionally been seen as a linear process, through which gases around the early sun gradually cooled to form small particles that eventually clumped into asteroids and planets. Now there is evidence of chondrules forming at two very distinct times, and evidence that embryo planets already existed when chondrules were still forming. “It moves our understanding from order to disorder,” the researcher admits. “But I am sure that as new data is collected, a new order will emerge.”352. End September 5 2005]

Also: Venus may be a planet that did not come in as a binary system, but sole and hardly rotating (retrograde). This may explain Venus' very large sidereal rotation period, the fact that Venus rotates retrograde and Venus' low eccentricity. (If a sole planet coming into a solar system starts orbiting with a relatively low eccentricity compared to a binary system then this would explain why the Earth, Jupiter and Neptune have lower eccentricities than their partners: a sole planet coming into the Solar System may start rotating with a relatively low eccentricity and in a binary system the heavier partner acts more as a sole planet.
Perhaps the momentum in a binary system causes higher eccentricities. This would explain the relatively high eccentricities of Jupiter and Saturn, which have relatively short sidereal rotation periods and thus had relatively fast orbiting velocities (when entering the Solar System) and hence a relatively big momentum causing eccentricity.)

[June 2004: A cloud of gas and dust and debris falling on a dark matter object, thus causing star formation as discussed in 7-1, may also bring proto-planetary discs which have been observed162,174. Therefore solar system formation too may be caused by the formation of proto-planetary discs next to sole dark matter objects flying into the solar system (7-1).
Thus there may be all kind of ways for solar systems to come to existence: dark matter objects coming from interstellar space swinging themselves around a star (with or without clashing), proto-planetary disc formation out of the remains of a gas/dust/debris cloud falling on a dark matter object, dust/debris clouds swinging themselves around a star thus forming a proto-planetary disc, and combinations of those 3 different ways of solar system formation. End June 2004]

[September 23 2005: Using NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope, a team of astronomers led by the University of Rochester has detected gaps ringing the dusty disks around two stars. Spitzer's Infrared Spectrograph instrument clearly showed that an area of dust surrounding certain stars was missing, strongly suggesting the presence of a planet around each. The only viable big bang explanation for the absence of gas is that a planet, most likely a gas giant like our Jupiter, is orbiting the star and gravitationally “sweeping out” the gas within that distance of the star, the researchers say. These observations represent a challenge to all existing big bang theories of giant-planet formation, especially those of the “core-accretion” models in which such planets are build up by accretion of smaller bodies368.
Perhaps that the above suggested alternative ways of solar system formation may be able to bring explanations. Large dark matter objects may come from interstellar space towards a star that is surrounded with a gas/dust disk, thus causing the gaps, i.e. the dark matter objects then may round up the gas/dust at certain distances from the star. Or: a gas/dust cloud may close in on a star that already has planets; the planets then may round up the gas/dust at certain distances from the star. Or: multiple gas/dust clouds close in on a star, having gaps between them (so perhaps there are no planets). Or: two gas/dust rings around a star may have been caused by four (two by two) giant planets (with gas) clashing at two different distances from the star. End September 23 2005]

[November 2004: Recently big bang astronomers looked for dusty discs around 266 nearby stars of similar size, about two to three times the mass of the sun, and various “ages” (that is, what big bang astronomers call ages, 4-4). Seventy-one of those stars were found to harbor discs. Instead of seeing the discs disappear in “older” stars, the astronomers observed the opposite in some cases. The team found some “young” stars missing discs and some “old” stars with massive discs257.
With the above mentioned ways of alternative ways of (proto-planetary) disc formation all kind of stars can have all kind of discs (or no disc at all). End November 2004]

[July 21 2005: Big bang astronomy states that dust disks around newborn stars disappear in a few million years; the disks ought to vanish because the material has collected into full-sized planets. Big bang astronomers have discovered a dust disk that shows no evidence of planet formation. The astronomers estimate the newfound disk to be about 25 million years old. For big bang astronomers the discovery raises the question of why this disk has not formed planets despite its advanced age341.
When planets are not formed by the formation of proto-planetary disks the problem is solved. End July 21 2005]
[September 5 2005: The central system in this case is actually a close binary star349. Perhaps that the two stars both had at least one planet orbiting the stars. Two planets of the stars therefore may have clashed, which may have produced the dust disk. Instead of the formation of (future) planets by a dust disk, as expected by big bang astronomers, a dust disk may have been formed by (clashing) planets. End September 5 2005]
[September 10 2005: Astronomers have spotted a dusty disc around the white dwarf GD 362. The dust surprised them. Dust around a white dwarf should only exist for hundreds of years before it is swept into the star by gravity and vaporized by high temperatures in the star's atmosphere. Something is keeping this star well stocked with dust somehow, the researchers say. They think that the dust around GD 362 could be the consequence of the relatively recent gravitational destruction of a large “parent body” that got too close to the star365.
Perhaps that clashing planets/dark matter objects can be the cause of the dust disc. A dark matter object or multiple dark matter objects may have come from interstellar space and so may have started orbiting the white dwarf until it/they clashed with old planets orbiting (the other way round) around the white dwarf. End September 10 2005]

[March 31 2005: Red dwarfs are smaller and cooler than our own Sun, but they account for 70% of the stars in our galaxy. Astronomers have wondered why there are so many red dwarfs, but they never seem to have protoplanetary discs of dust surrounding them, indicating the formation of new planets. These stars are too small to remove dust the way larger stars do it307.
Stars may come to existence by dark matter objects assembling hydrogen/gas/dust/smaller dark matter objects (7-1). Stars may shine for a while, cool down, assemble new hydrogen/gas/dust, light up again and shine for a while, cool down, assemble new hydrogen/gas/dust, etc. If so then red dwarfs are likely to be very young stars that so far did not have much time to assemble protoplanetary discs of dust. This may explain why most red dwarfs don't have protoplanetary discs of dust surrounding them. End March 31 2005]

Part 1 The expansion redshift paradigm
Part 2 The relativity paradigm
Part 3 The quantum mechanics and Newtonian gravity paradigms
Part 4 The big bang paradigm
Part 5 The black hole paradigm
Part 6 The neutron star and degenerate gas paradigms
Part 7 The star formation and solar system formation paradigms