V.3 No 1

29

Chapter 1. Hypotheses of the Earth origin

All described nebular hypotheses obviously contributed to general knowledge definite important aspects. However they retained quite many unanswered questions and uncleared discrepancies. This is why in parallel with them there was developed another class of hypotheses - catastrophic. After J. Buffon (1745) [32], the planets originated as the splinters, when some large comet stroked the Protosun. T.C. Chamberlin (1901) and Moulton (1905) [32] supposed that a commensurable star travelled in the near of Protosun and pulled out of it two spirals of the substance that continued their rotation around the Sun and originated the planets as a result of the same accretion. Analysing this hypothesis, J.Gins (1916- 1919) "came to the conclusion that in two stars approach, the tidal knops on one of them cannot produce the explosive jets of the substance. By his opinion, one of knops turned into a cigar-like protuberance that took off from Sun and scattered into separated, fast getting cold clots in the dust cloud. In the middle of 'cigar' there formed most large clots - the planets, and at the periphery - smaller ones. In the satellites forming, the Sun itself took part of the counter star" [34, p. 15]. Further, "H. Jeffreys supposed that the star passing by grazed the Sun and cut a part of its substance, which served the material to form the planets" [ibidem].

As we see, the hypotheses divide into nebular and catastrophic quite conventionally. The difference is, whether the planetary substance rotated in the Sun orbits, either it has been pulled loose or dislodged from the Sun in a practically ready appearance. None of these hypotheses tell of mutual affection of interacting bodies, of pulling either pulling loose the substance of both stars, as soon as they are supposed to be comparable. Probably, in this class of hypotheses the kinematic scheme of interaction and the energy interchange should take their part no less than a simple mass, and dependently on specific conditions, both the result and the source of substance for planets can be different. In particular, by Jeffreys [42], the velocity and mass of the counter star had to be so large that the remainders of Protosun would rather be either absorbed by this star, by force of accretion, or to become the satellites of this mighty body, or to be scattered to such distance that it would be impossible for them to gather into some system again. One can discuss the origin of a planet system in such way only in a narrow, rather even exceptional case.

Yet one never saw giant stars coming off their orbits that are strongly balanced in galaxy fields, the more colliding in space where stars are placed not so dense to make the collision quite probable and could serve the grounds for such version. However the clots ejection from the galaxy nuclei and bursts of supernova have been multiply observed and had to stimulate a new spire of hypotheses. "V.A. Krat, Soviet astronomer, having generalised the data of observation on nebulas, suggested in 70th years of 20th century the following scheme of Sun system formation. At the first stage there existed some rotating gas-dust nebula with some gravitation consolidation in its centre. This clot of matter - future Sun - was a white-blue giant with the temperature on its surface about 20 000 ^oC. When it heated up to 100 000 ^oC on account of gravitation consolidation, it led to the thermonuclear burst and scattering the scorching substance up to the Jupiter orbit; the outer planets formed behind it of the cold matter… Getting free of mass excess, the Sun turned into a red giant with the mass 1,5 times and luminosity 1,6 times more than now. In the scorching substance surrounding the Sun, there began an accretion and formation of hot (500- 1100 ^oC) Earth-like planets. The planets gradually cooled down, light elements volatilised, the 'solar wind' blew gas envelops from the planets…" [34, p. 15- 16]. We should admit this version well more substantiated and logic. But notice, the solar wind is a phenomenon of basically other order of values than the atmospheric gases and vapours, so it is doubtful as a cause, why the planets lost their atmospheres which, none the less, are observed in almost all of them, and some planets have them abundant.

Fig. 1.12. Radio galaxy Virgo A (M 87) with the jet ejected from the nucleus, containing the radio emanating clots [33, p. 350].

After V.A. Ambartsumyan [43], planet systems could form like galaxies and stars, i.e. of some super-dense bodies: for instance, resulting from some catastrophic bursts caused by the star substance dissipation (see Fig. 1.12), - true, Ambartsumyan does not think the burst a necessary way: "The team of Dutch astronomers leaded by Professor J. Oort succeeded to observe in the interior part of our Galaxy the regular motion of the masses of neutral hydrogen from the centre. The velocity was here about several dozens of kilometres per second, so we will hardly suppose that there took place the burst. We would rather think it the regular gas effusion from the nucleus. Similar gas effusion from the central part is observed in the galaxy M 31. So we hardly avoid the conclusion that in each galaxy the gas component (the assemblage of gas clouds) has formed of the substance ejected from the nucleus. In some cases it was caused by a burst, in some others - a permanent emanation of the substance". And further: "According to the traditional concepts, the entire evolution goes from the less dense, diffusive substance to that more dense. It was expected that with time the galaxies separate from the initially diffusive medium that fills the Universe. The observations, however, insistently show this traditional pattern wrong. They tell directly that the substance of galaxy transits from more concentrated state to that diffusive, tell of bursts and ejections. On the other hand, we nowhere observe the phenomena of clotting and collapse" [33].