GALAXIES, STARS, PLANETS, MOONS, MINOR PLANETS AND COMETS

Suggested outward sweep of the Sun-Companion solar system barycenter (SSB) through the Kuiper belt at an exponential rate, driven by the spiral in of the brown dwarf components of former binary-Companion. The ‘tidal threshold’, associated with the SSB, perturbed Kuiper belt objects into the inner solar system during the late heavy bombardment:

– 35.8 AU at 4,567 Ma

– 39.4 AU at 4,220 Ma, 1st pulse of LHB by Plutinos

– 43 AU at 3,900 Ma, 2nd pulse of LHB by cubewanos

– Binary-Companion merges in an asymmetrical binary spiral-in merger explosion at 542 Ma, giving our newly-merged Companion escape velocity from the Sun

Abstract:

This alternative conceptual ideology attempts to suggest alternative primary mechanisms for the formation of gravitationally-bound objects and their subsystems, with the intention of creating a more predictive, more falsifiable and less ad hoc ideology than the standard models.

The following alternative mechanisms will be conceptually examined and applied primarily in our own solar system:
– Flip-flop fragmentation (FFF)
– Trifurcation
– Accretion-disk-wobble spin-off planets
– Hybrid accretion (Thayne Curie 2005)
– Flip-flop perturbation of minor planets by a tidal threshold

– FFF suggests that excess angular momentum in the collapsing dark cores may create accretion disks which are much more massive than their diminutive cores and thus inertially dominate the system. A spiral density wave of a massive accretion disk may cause a bilateral disk instability, condensing a twin-binary-pair of disk instability objects which are much more massive than their brown-dwarf or red-dwarf core. Then equipartition of kinetic energy causes a flip-flop to occur between the much-greater overlying mass of the twin binary (stellar) pair and its diminutive core, creating a hierarchical system in which the former core is ‘evaporated’ into a circumbinary orbit around the twin binary pair which spiral inward to conserve system energy and angular momentum. FFF is a catastrophic mechanism for projecting mass inward and increasing system entropy, compared to the gradualism of gas infalling onto a young stellar object from its accretion disk. In our own solar system, which is suggested to have undergone FFF, our former binary-Sun spiraled in to merge at 4,567 Ma. The binary-Sun merger created a primary debris disk which condensed asteroids and chondrites against Jupiter’s strongest inner resonances and Kuiper belt objects against Neptune’s strongest outer resonances.

– Trifurcation suggests that FFF not only transfers kinetic energy and angular momentum from the orbits of more massive disk-instability objects to their central cores in a flip-flop process, but it also transfers rotational kinetic energy and angular momentum to the central cores, causing them to ‘spin up’. This spin up of a core may progress to the point of becoming a bar-mode instability which may result in ‘trifurcation’, in which the self gravity of the bar-mode arms causes them to pinch off to form a twin binary pair in Keplerian orbit around the much-smaller but higher-density residual core. Thus our former red-dwarf core is suggested to have trifurcated to form a former brown-dwarf binary-Companion, whose residual core trifurcated to form Jupiter-Saturn, whose residual core trifurcated to form Uranus-Neptune, whose residual core trifurcated to form Venus-Earth with Mercury as its residual core.

– Accretion-disk-wobble spin-off planets is a less catastrophic mechanism by which an inertially dominant accretion disk is suggested to displace the center of gravity of a prestellar or protostellar system, injecting the core into a planetary orbit around the offset center of gravity. Then the newly displaced center of gravity begins to precipitate a new core. This process may occur repeatedly to form multiple accretion-disk-wobble spin-off planets in a size range of mini-Neptunes up to super-Jupiters. If our solar system had any spin-off planets prior to FFF, it presumably lost them during the flip-flop process.

– Hybrid accretion may form a super-Earth just beyond the magnetic corotation radius of young stellar objects. Zillions of planetesimals presumably condense by streaming instability against the magnetic corotation radius at the inside edge of protoplanetary disks, followed by core accretion to form a super-Earth, with the ‘hybrid’ in hybrid accretion referring to the combination of streaming instability and core accretion in the formation of hybrid accretion objects. Cascades of super-Earths form in succession from the inside out when the first super-Earth creates a gap in the accretion disk and begins condensing planetesimals by streaming instability against its outer resonances. Hybrid-accretion moons may also form by this mechanism, such as the planemo moons of Uranus.

– Flip-flop perturbation by a ‘tidal threshold’ is related to the barycenter between two massive objects, such as the Sun and former binary-Companion. When a heliocentric object is orbiting inside the tidal threshold its aphelion is attracted to the companion object, and when a heliocentric object is orbiting outside the tidal threshold, its aphelion will be centrifugally slung away from the Companion by 180°. In our early solar system our former brown-dwarf binary-Companion spiraled out from the Sun as its binary brown-dwarf components spiraled inward, causing the tidal threshold (which was associated with the solar system barycenter but not coincident with it) to spiral out through the classical Kuiper belt from about 4,100–3,800 Ma, perturbing Kuiper belt objects (KBOs) into the inner solar system, causing the late heavy bombardment. Then binary-Companion also spiraled in to merge at 542 Ma in an asymmetrical merger explosion that gave the newly-merged Companion escape velocity from the Sun, creating a secondary debris disk which condensed young, cold classical KBOs in low-eccentricity low-inclination orbits which have not been perturbed by the tidal threshold.
………………..

Introduction:

Star formation stages:
1) Starless core: May be a transient phase or may progress to gravitational instability infall
2) Prestellar core: A gravitating prestellar core ends with the formation of the second hydrostatic core when hydrogen gas endothermically dissociates into atomic hydrogen at around 2000 K.
3) Protostar (Class 0, I, II, III): Begins with the formation of the second hydrostatic core.
4) Pre-main-sequence star: A T Tauri, FU Orionis, or larger (unnamed) pre-main-sequence star powered by gravitational contraction
5) Main-sequence star: Powered by hydrogen fusion

“Starless cores are possibly transient concentrations of molecular gas and dust without embedded young stellar objects (YSOs), typically observed in tracers such as C18O (e.g. Onishi et al. 1998), NH3 (e.g. Jijina, Myers, & Adams 1999), or dust extinction (e.g. Alves et al. 2007), and which do not show evidence of infall. Prestellar cores are also starless (M⋆ = 0) but represent a somewhat denser and more centrally-concentrated population of cores which are self-gravitating, hence unlikely to be transient.” (André et al. 2008)

In Jeans instability, the cloud collapses at an approximately free-fall rate nearly isothermally at about 10 K until the center become optically thick at ~10-13 g/cm3 after 105 yr (Larson 1969), at which point when the temperature begins to rise, forming a ‘first core’ or first hydrostatic core (FHSC). Supersonically infalling gas in the envelope is decelerated and thermalized at the surface of the first core (Masunaga et al. 1998).

When the temperature reaches about 2000 K, the hydrogen begins to dissociate endothermically, forming a ‘second core’, the birth of a protostar. The protostar grows in mass by accreting the infalling material from the circumstellar envelope, while the protostar keeps its radius at ~4 R☉ during the main accretion phase. (Masunaga et al. 1998)

“Enoch et al. (2009a) discovered a massive circumstellar disk of ∼1 M☉ comparable to a central protostar around a Class 0 object, indicating that (1) the disk already exists in the main accretion phase and (2) the disk mass is significantly larger than the theoretical
prediction.” (Machida et al. 2011)

“The size of the first core was found to vary somewhat in the different simulations (more unstable clouds form smaller first cores) while the size, mass, and temperature of the second cores are independent of initial cloud mass, size, and temperature.
Conclusions. Our simulations support the idea of a standard (universal) initial second core size of ~ 3 × 10−3 AU and mass ~ 1.4 ×10−3 M☉.”
(Vaytet et al. 2013)

“Class 0 objects are the youngest accreting protostars observed right after point mass formation, when most of the mass of the system is still in the surrounding dense core/envelope (Andre et al. 2000).”
(Chen et al. 2012)

“The compact components around the Class 0 protostars could be the precursors to these Keplerian disks. However, it is unlikely that such massive rotationally supported disks could be stably supported given the expected low stellar mass for the Class 0 protostars: they should be prone to fragmentation”.
(Zhi-Yun Li et al. 2014)
………………..

Hybrid accretion planets and moons:

An additional planet formation mechanism proposed by Thayne Curie 2005, designated ‘hybrid accretion’, marries gravitational instability with core accretion, suggesting that zillions of planetesimals form by gravitational instability, which subsequently combine by core accretion to form planets.

Super-Earths are suggested to form by ‘hybrid accretion’ of planetesimals ‘condensed’ by streaming instability at the inner edge of accretion disks, presumably against the magnetic corotation radius of young stellar objects. The ‘hybrid’ term in ‘hybrid accretion’ refers to the juxtaposition of planetesimals formed by gravitational (streaming) instability, followed by the core accretion of those planetesimals into super-Earths.

Cascades of super-Earths are suggested to form in sequence from the inside out, with the innermost super-Earth of a cascade forming first. When hybrid accretion nominally reaches the size of a super-Earth, it creates a gap in the accretion disk, effectively truncating the inner edge of the accretion disk to its outer resonances where a next generation of planetesimals may condense from by streaming instability to form the next super-Earth in a possible cascade.

Streaming instability presumably can occur at the inner edge of accretion disks around giant planets as well, but the hybrid-accretion moon apparently clears a gap in the accretion disk long-long before reaching the scale of a super-Earth or even a super moon, presumably because proto gas-giant planets have relatively-weak magnetic fields compared to protostars, even correcting for their much-lower mass. And a comparatively-weak magnetic field puts the magnetic corotation radius comparatively close to gas-giant planets, which creates diminutive hybrid-accretion moons.

The 5 planemo moons of Uranus; Miranda, Ariel, Umbriel, Titania and Oberon appear to be the best example of a moony hybrid-accretion cascade in our solar system, with Mimas, Enceladus, Tethys, Dione, Rhea, and presumably Iapetus at Saturn as the second best.

The observed pattern of Uranian moons, tending to increase in size with orbital distance but not tending to decrease in density is suggested to be the pattern of hybrid accretion, where the most distant planemo hybrid accretion moon of Uranus (Oberon) hasn’t quite reached hybrid accretion maturity before the gravitational instability mechanism was shut down by the dissipation of the Uranian accretion disk.

See:
– Hybrid Mechanisms for Gas/Ice Giant Planet Formation (Thayne Currie 2005),
– And section; CASCADE FORMATION OF SUPER-EARTHS BY HYBRID CORE ACCRETION OF PLANETESIMALS ‘CONDENSED’ BY GRAVITATIONAL INSTABILITY AT THE INNER EDGE OF ACCRETION DISKS
………………..

Flip-flop fragmentation (FFF)

This is an alternative conceptual ideology for the formation of similar-sized (twin) binary pairs by disk instability, after which the much-smaller core at the center of gravity of the system is ‘evaporated’ into a circumbinary satellite orbit in a flip-flop fashion, creating a hierarchical system, causing the twin binary pair to spiral in to a tighter orbit around the center of gravity of the system or subsystem. This disk instability fragmentation followed by the inertial flip-flop is designated, flip-flop fragmentation (FFF).

When an accretion disk supported by rotation is much more massive than its central core, the accretion disk inertially dominates the system and dictates the dynamics, while the diminutive core may be unable to damp down disk inhomogeneities from amplifying into runaway disk instability.

In a massive accretion disk in hydrostatic equilibrium the differential mass of the disk increases with distance to the point where the outer portion of the disk may contain much more mass with near-zero-angular-momentum-with-respect-to-itself than its diminutive core and thus the outer portion of the disk will inertially dominate the system. Angular momentum merely forestalls inward gravitational attraction, in which the inward projection of mass increases system entropy, representing a favorable thermodynamic outcome, and a catastrophic mechanism that rapidly projects mass inward should be favored over a gradual mechanism that slowly projects angular momentum outward by the gradual infall of matter onto the core, since the rapid catastrophic mechanism accelerates system entropy.

The bilateral spiral symmetry of an accretion disk with an m = 2 spiral density wave is scant protection against catastrophic inward projection of mass when the outer portion of the disk contains much more mass at near-zero-angular-momentum-with-respect-to-itself than a diminutive core, but one additional obstacle stands in the way of FFF: the necessity of a Jeans mass to initiate disk instability. FFF suggests that a stellar Jeans mass is necessary to initiate disk instability in a protoplanetary disk (except in the late stages of a protoplanetary disk or debris disk when streaming instabilities are able concentrate dust into vastly-smaller Jeans masses). And presumably a sufficiently-massive core-to-accretion-disk mass ratio will either prevent or ‘heal’ the disk inhomogeneities necessary to attain a Jeans mass (likely by way of preventing a sufficiently distinct spiral density wave), so a sufficient accretion-disk-to-core-mass ratio is also suggested to be necessary for FFF.

L1448 IRS3B:
The Class 0 protostar system, L1448 IRS3B is suggested to have formed by FFF, from an accretion disk with a spiral density wave. This triple system is composed of a similar-sized binary pair (IRS3B-a & IRS3B-b), with a combined mass of ~ 1 M☉ in a 61 AU binary orbit, with a distant tertiary companion (IRS3B-c) that has a minimum mass of of ~ 0.085 M☉ at a separation of 183 AU from the binary pair. This system may become more hierarchical over time, coming to resemble the Alpha Centauri system at half the mass. “Thus we expect the [L1448 IRS3B] orbits to evolve on rapid timescales (with respect to the expected stellar lifetime), especially as the disk dissipates. A natural outcome of this dynamical instability is the formation of a more hierarchical system with a tighter (few AU) inner pair and wider (100s to 1,000s AU) tertiary, consistent with observed triple systems.” (Tobin et al. 2016)

L1448 IRS3B (continued):
The tertiary star, IRS3B-c, is embedded in a spiral arm of the outer disk, where the spiral arm has an estimated mass of 0.3 M☉. The standard model of companion star formation expressed by Tobin et al. suggests that IRS3B-c formed in situ by gravitational instability from the spiral disk, making IRS3B-c younger than IRS3B-a & IRS3B-b, but problematically, circumbinary IRS3B-c is brighter at at 1.3 mm and 8 mm than its much more massive siblings, as is clearly apparent in the image above. Instead, the brighter (apparently more evolved) tertiary companion, IRS3B-c, appears to support an alternative FFF origin, in which a diminutive central core was surrounded by a much more massive accretion disk that underwent FFF disk instability. Presumably the disk instability condensed a twin binary pair that was much more massive than the central core and hierarchically displaced the older core into a circumbinary orbit, causing the twin binary pair to spiral inward. This is a fortuitously young system in which the smaller circumbinary star is still apparently more evolved than its twin-binary-pair (host) stars, since more massive stars evolve faster such that the twin-binary-pair stars will likely reach the main sequence before the smaller, older circumbinary star.

Protostar system L1448 IRS3B, showing central binary pair of protostars (IRS3B-a & IRS3B-b) orbited by a less massive but much brighter companion protostar (IRS3B-c) in a circumbinary orbit.

Image Credit: Bill Saxton, ALMA (ESO/NAOJ/NRAO), NRAO/AUI/NSF – Publication: John Tobin (Univ. Oklahoma/Leiden) et al.

Galactic FFF:
FFF may occur over a wide range of scales, from the gas-giant planet scale up to perhaps the galactic scale. Galactic FFF is suggested to be the mechanism by which proto-spiral-galaxies with excess angular momentum catastrophically projected mass inward to become stable spiral galaxies with flattened disk planes and sufficiently large galactic bulges to prevent further disk instability and spiral-galaxy core spin off. Our proto-Milky-Way is suggested to have experienced runaway disk instability, condensing a twin-binary-pair of disk instability objects that were much more massive than the diminutive core. Hierarchy emerged, causing the twin disk instability objects to spiral in, inertially ejecting the former core into a circumbinary orbit, perhaps as the Large Magellanic Cloud, with Triangulum Galaxy as the corresponding former FFF core of proto-Andromeda Galaxy. The twin disk instability objects flip-flopped with the core and spiraled in to form central bulge of the Milky Way, but not without retaining a fossil memory of their former binary origin in the form of a peanut/box-shaped central bulge, with an off-centered X structure. If the twin-binary-pair disk instability objects each formed a supermassive black hole (SMBH) by direct collapse, this may explain the origin of binary supermassive black holes in smaller and younger (spiral) galaxies that underwent galactic FFF, where the former twin-binary-pair SMBHs spiraled in to merge and form Sagittarius A* in the central galactic bulge of the Milky Way.
………………..

Trifurcation:

This alternative ideology attempts to explain the origin of the 3 twin pairs of planets in our solar system (Jupiter-Saturn, Uranus-Neptune, Venus-Earth) and the suggested former brown-dwarf binary-Companion by the repetitive application of a suggested mechanism which fragments solitary gravitationally-bound objects into three components in Kelerian rotation around their mutual center of gravity in a mechanism designated, ‘trifurcation’.

Trifurcation is a suggested dynamic mechanism for pumping energy and angular momentum into a gravitationally-bound object, causing the object to ‘spin up’ to the point of inducing a bar-mode instability followed by fragmentation into three components: a twin (similar-sized) binary pair and a smaller residual core. In the flip-flop dynamic of FFF a diminutive core is inertially displaced into a circumbinary orbit around the much-larger twin binary pair of disk-instability objects condensed from the accretion disk, and the resulting energy and angular momentum transfer from the larger, younger twin-binary-pair disk-instability objects to the smaller, older central core is suggested to also pump energy and angular momentum into the rotation of the diminutive core, causing it to spin up.

The centrifugal force of a progressive spin up distorts a core from a radially-symmetrical oblate spheroid into a bilaterally-symmetrical bar-mode instability. As the bar-mode arms become increasingly displaced from the center of gravity, the self gravity of the bar-mode arms increases until it dominates and causes gravitational fragmentation, where the arms pinch off from the core to form a twin binary pair of discrete gravitationally-bound objects within their own Roche spheres in Keplerian orbits around a much-smaller residual core.

Following trifurcation pinch off, the much-greater inertial mass of the twin binary pair dominates the nascent trinary system, where the much-greater overlying twin-binary-pair mass is dynamically unstable, which initiates a transfer of kinetic energy and angular momentum from the twin binary pair to the residual core in a dynamic flip-flop mechanism akin to FFF.

In addition to FFF induced trifurcation, trifurcation itself is suggested to induce next-generation trifurcation of the residual core by means of the flip-flop mechanism the two mechanisms have in common. Following trifurcation, the dynamic interplay between the three trifurcated components transfers orbital energy and angular momentum from the larger twin binary pair to the smaller residual (tertiary) core until the core is evaporated into a circumbinary orbit around the larger twin binary pair. This orbital energy and angular momentum transfer is suggested to accompany a rotational energy and angular momentum transfer into the core, tending to induce a next-generation trifurcation in the core.

At the instant of trifurcation, when the twin bar-mode arms pinch off into separate gravitationally-bound objects within their own Roche spheres, the residual core is at the trinary center of gravity, orbited by the twin binary pair. The much-greater overlying mass of the twin binary pair constitutes an unstable system which amplifies chaotic inhomogeneities to create orbital ‘interplay’ between the trinary components. During interplay, orbital close encounters between the core and its twin-binary-pair components tends to equalize the kinetic energy by the process known as ‘equipartition’ of kinetic energy, transferring orbital energy and angular momentum from the more-massive twin components to the less-massive core. In this way, orbital interplay gradually gives way to a hierarchical system in which the less-massive core is ‘evaporated’ into a circumbinary orbit around the twin binary pair, while the twin binary pair sinks inward to conserve subsystem energy and angular momentum; however, the trifurcation subsystem itself may be orbiting within a larger system undergoing FFF or within a previous-generation trifurcation system, so while a twin binary pair is induced to spiral inward due to dynamic interactions with its less-massive core, the twin binary pair may be simultaneously induced to spiral outward due to dynamic interactions with a much-larger twin-binary disk-instability objects, or much-larger previous-generation-trifurcation twin-binary pair. So twin binary components may ultimately either spiral in to merge (like former binary-Companion), or may spiral out to dynamically separate, like Jupiter-Saturn, Uranus-Neptune, and Venus-Earth. Presumably diminutive cores rarely if ever spiral in to merge with much-larger twin components, even if their twin binary-pair components do so, but instead evaporate out to become permanent satellites of their immediate subsystem or larger system.

During interplay, hyperbolic-trajectory close encounters between a core and its more-massive twin binary components also tends to increase the rotation rate of the core. Scheeres et al. 2000 calculates that the rotation rate of asteroids tends to increase in close encounters of asteroids with larger planemo objects. Thus kinetic energy and angular momentum are not only pumped into the orbit of the core around the center of gravity of the trinary subsystem but also pumped into the rotation of the residual core, perhaps to the point of inducing a next-generation trifurcation. In this way a next-generation (higher-order) trifurcation is suggested to possibly evolve from the previous-generation (lower-order) trifurcation by way of spin up of the core.

Trifurcation leaves behind a much-smaller higher-density (higher-metalicity) residual core by spinning off the gaseous volatiles into the bar-mode arms, where the bar-mode arms condense into the next-generation twin binary pair. But while the densest solids gravitationally sequester in the core, the heaviest gaseous isotopes are presumably fractionated into the bar-mode arms by the centrifugal centrifuge effect. So while the residual core acquires the highest metallicity solids of the trifurcated components, the twin binary pair presumably acquires the heaviest gaseous isotopes, where gravity wins inside a certain threshold radius of a bar-mode instability and centrifugal force wins beyond the threshold radius.

The pinch off of twin binary pairs during trifurcation may rather messy if the pinched of masses have excess angular momentum, preventing them from directly collapsing into solitary objects. Oversized ‘Titan moons’ suggest subsequent proto-Saturn trifurcation, or alternatively, proto-Saturn underwent FFF following the pinch off of the bar-mode arm due to excess angular momentum. The smaller planemo moons of Saturn, namely; Mimas, Enceladus, Tethys, Rhea and Iapetus are lower in density than Titan and too much smaller, suggesting that they formed by hybrid accretion rather than trifurcation. Following presumed FFF, binary-Saturn spiraled in to merge and form solitary Saturn.

Since Earth’s Moon has a proportionately smaller iron core than Earth itself, Moon apparently did not form by trifurcation, otherwise it should have a proportionately-larger iron core than Earth, like Mercury does, so the composition of Earth’s Moon points to FFF of the bar-mode arm following trifurcation pinch off of proto-Earth. FFF of proto-Earth formed binary-Earth and Moon (not a ‘trifurcation residual core’ but an ‘FFF core’), after which the components of binary-Earth spiraled in to merge, apparently some 50 million years later, if enstitite chondrites (4.508 +/- 0.037 Ga) (Minster et al. 1979), which lie on the terrestrial fractionation line, formed from polar jets squirting from the cores of the binary spiral-in merger of former binary-Earth.

Jupiter apparently also underwent FFF following trifurcation pinch off, followed by two generations of moony trifurcation. Indeed, Io (3.528 g/cm3) and Europa (3.013 g/cm3) are considerably denser than Ganymede (1.936 g/cm3) and Callisto (1.8344 g/cm3), in line with residual cores having higher density then their twin binary pair siblings. But if so, Jupiter is missing a residual core of second-generation moony trifurcation of twin-binary-pair Io and Europa.

FFF and trifurcation are suggested catastrophic mechanisms for catastrophically projecting mass inward and increasing system entropy by way of increasing system asymmetry. While trifurcation of a core increases its energy and angular momentum and reduces its entropy, the top-level system must conserve energy and angular momentum and must experience a sufficient increase in entropy to drive the system forward.
………………..

Accretion-disk-wobble spin-off planets:

When an accretion disk is much more massive than its diminutive core, the accretion disk dominates the system and an asymmetrical disk wobble may displace the center of gravity of the system from a prestellar or protostellar core in a manor which inserts the displaced core into a planetary Keplerian orbit around the newly-offset center of gravity. This ‘accretion-disk-wobble spin-off’ mechanism, designated ‘spin off’ for short, is suggested to form objects ranging in size from mini-Neptunes up to super-Jupiters around yellow dwarf stars, and possibly larger brown-dwarf and red-dwarf objects around larger giant stars.

Presumably collapsing dark cores with excess angular momentum form massive accretion disks around diminutive cores, and when the mass in the outer edge of the accretion disk, at near-zero-angular-momentum-with-respect-to-itself, is greater than or much greater than the mass in the core, disk inhomogeneities may reform the accretion disk, creating a new center of gravity by a centrifugal mechanism which progressively transfers angular momentum from the disk to the core which causes the core to spiral out into a Keplerian planetary orbit around the newly-offset center of gravity.

Mini-Neptunes (also known as gas dwarf planets) in a mass range of about 6–10 Earth masses may be the most common type of exoplanet, and with their hydrogen/helium atmospheres they are presumably the lower limit of spin off planets, although there may be no bimodal bright-line cut off between hybrid accretion super-Earths and spin-off mini-Neptunes. The rocky cores of mini-Neptunes are presumably formed by sedimentation of dust and ice during the circa 100,000 year prestellar phase, forming super-Earth-sized cores of rock and ice that survive centrifugal offset (spin off), even if the vast majority of their hydrogen/helium atmospheres evaporates back into the accretion disk.

If the spin mechanism can off can create multiple spin-off planets in succession, the angular momentum pumping of the core by the disk may be partly out of sync with the period and orbital phase of one or more previous cores, resulting in angular momentum being pumped out the orbit, which may explain some exoplanets with highly-inclined and retrograde orbits. Ultimately, the multiple phases and periods of a system with multiple spin-off planets may inertially resist further angular momentum transfer from the disk to the core by way of spin off, causing a build up in the mass and angular momentum in the accretion disk to the point of triggering FFF, a much more catastrophic mechanism for projecting mass inward.

Flip-flop fragmentation is suggested to form solar systems such as ours with a former presumably-brown-dwarf binary-Companion at many 100s to several 1000s of AU, or the Alpha Centauri system with red-dwarf Prxima Centauri at 12,950 AU, or the L1448 IRS3B system with red-dwarf IRS3B-c at 183 AU, by flip-flopping brown dwarf or red dwarf cores into circumbinary orbits around much-larger twin-binary-pair disk-instability-object stars, where after, secular perturbation may cause the twin binary pairs to spiral in and merge, as is suggested to have occurred in our solar system when binary-Sun stellar components merged at 4,567 Ma. By comparison, suggested cold Jupiter spin-off planets have a median semi-major axes of about 2 AU and suggested hot Jupiter spin-off planets have an orbital period of under 10 days. The paucity of brown dwarf orbits of less than 5 AU, known as the ‘brown-dwarf desert’, may indicate that brown dwarfs are apparently above the upper-limit cut off of objects formed by the spin off mechanism, at least around yellow dwarf stars such as our own. By extrapolation, super accretion disks around giant stars may routinely spin off brown dwarfs and even red dwarfs.

Globular clusters as proto-spiral-galaxy spin off objects:
The analogy between suggested spin off planets and globular clusters in a halo around a spiral galaxy central bulge suggests a formational analogy. Presumably proto-spiral-galaxies with excess angular momentum whose spiral disk planes were much more massive than their diminutive cores spun off a succession of cores in the form of globular clusters as a mechanism for projecting spiral-disk mass inward and winding down excess spiral-disk angular momentum. Presumably the growing inertial mass of the globular clusters ultimately prevented further galactic spin off of cores until catastrophic galactic FFF ended galactic evolution altogether, converting our former proto-Galaxy into a mature spiral galaxy with a sufficiently-large central bulge to damp down further galactic spin off or galactic FFF.
………………..

Hot Jupiter and cold Jupiter spin-off planets:

Inside the accretion disk of a prestellar object, the gas undergoes freefall, with potential energy radiated away by dust and carbon monoxide, maintaining the core temperature at around 10 K. When the core density reaches about 10^13 g cm-3, it becomes optically thick to infrared radiation, causing the internal temperature to rise. This rise in temperature creates a ‘first hydrostatic core’ (FHSC), with compression becoming approximately adiabatic. The FHSC phase is thought to last about 1000 years, by which time the core temperature rises to about 2000 K. At around 2000K, the core undergoes a brief ‘second collapse’, on the order of 0.1 yr, caused by the endothermic dissociation of molecular hydrogen. After this brief second collapse, the prestellar object transitions to a ‘second hydrostatic core’ (SHSC) and becomes a protostar.

L1451-mm is a suggested FHSC with a compact unresolved emission with an estimated mass of 0.024 M☉, where the compact component is interpreted as an unresolved central disk (Pineda et al. 2011), so if L1451-mm has a Jupiter-mass FHSC with a 0.024 M☉ accretion disk, then the disk is 25 times as massive as its FHSC, and thus ‘much more massive’. “Enoch et al. (2009a) discovered a massive circumstellar disk of ∼1 M☉ comparable to a central protostar around a Class 0 object, indicating that (1) the disk already exists in the main accretion phase and (2) the disk mass is significantly larger than the theoretical prediction.” (Machida et al. 2011)

Part of the attraction of core spin off ideology should be its suggested explanation of the bimodal clumping of gas-giant exoplanets into hot Jupiters, with periods below about 10 days, and ‘cold Jupiters’, with median semimajor axes around 2 AU. The gap between hot and cold Jupiters, resulting in the bimodal clumping, is suggested here to be the result of the relative absence of core spin off during the circa 1000 year FHSC phase. At the appearance of the FHSC, freefall ends and the core size increases to ~ 5 AU, and several times that size for rapidly-rotating cores. An increase in the core size during the brief FHSC phase may physically and viscously connect the FHSC with the inner edge of its accretion disk, which may damp down centrifugal a centrifugal transfer of angular momentum to the core during the FHSC phase. While a wobbling accretion disk can still offset the center of gravity from the FHSC, it may do so more or less as a linear offset, since the core is viscously unable to spiral out into a Keplerian orbit around the center of gravity, thus the FHSC with a linear offset from the center of gravity may tend to fall back into the center of gravity rather than assuming a Keplerian planetary orbit.

Contraction of the second hydrostatic core (SHSC):
“The core then begins to lose a significant amount of energy through the combined effects of convective energy transport from the interior and radiative energy losses from the surface layers; as a result the core contracts by a significant factor in radius. This phase of the evolution, represented in Fig. 3 by the section of the curve between approximately 10 and 100 years after the formation of the stellar core, is quite analogous to the pre-main sequence contraction of a star along the ‘Hayashi track’.”
(Larson 1969)

The contraction of the SHSC presumably once again isolates the core from the accretion disk, presumably allowing centrifugal pumping of angular momentum from the accretion disk to the core, allowing accretion disk wobble to spin off SHSCs.

Note the distinct bimodal distribution of ‘hot Jupiter’ and ‘cold Jupiter’ exoplanets, with hot Jupiters with periods of less than 10 days and cold Jupiters with semimajor axes centered around 2 AU.

Image credit: Penn State, Eberly College of Science, ASTRO 140
https://online.science.psu.edu/astro140_fawd001/node/11798

And since young prestellar objects presumably have smaller-diameter, smaller-mass accretion disks with less angular momentum than more-mature Class 0 protostars, spin off in the prestellar phase will presumably result in low angular momentum hot-Jupiter gas-giant planets in low hot orbits, while spin off during the later protostellar phase will presumably result in higher angular momentum cold-Jupiters in circa 2 AU orbits. Thus a circa 1000 year hiatus in spin off during the FHSC phase is suggested to explain the distinct bimodal clumping of gas-giant planets into hot Jupiters and cold Jupiters.
………………..

Solar system evolution:

A massive accretion disk around a small red-dwarf-sized core distorted by spiral-density wave underwent FFF, condensing a twin pair of disk-instability objects, binary-Sun, that flip-flopped with the much-smaller red-dwarf-sized core. During the FFF flip-flop, the core underwent 4 generations of trifurcation, forming 4 twin binary pairs, plus the residual core, Mercury:
1) Binary-Companion (former)
2) Jupiter-Saturn
3) Uranus-Neptune
4) Venus-Earth + residual core, Mercury.

Smaller higher-generation trifurcation components tend to cause twin binary pairs to spiral in, while larger lower-generation trifurcation components tend to cause twin binary pairs to spiral out, so the multi-generation trifurcation components conspired to cause the twin binary-Sun components to spiral in and merge at 4,567 Ma, creating a ‘primary debris disk’, while the twin binary-Companion components spiraled in to merge 4 billion years later, at 542 Ma, creating a ‘secondary debris disk’. Supernova explosions are known to create run away stars, so an asymmetrical binary spiral-in merger explosion of our former binary-Companion at 542 Ma is suggested to have given the newly-merged Companion escape velocity from the Sun.

Flip-flop perturbation:
The tidal threshold between the Sun and former binary-Companion is suggested to have perturbed Kuiper belt objects (KBOs), most notably during the late heavy bombardment (LHB)(4000–3800 Ma) by means of aphelia precession. As the brown-dwarf binary-Companion components spiraled in, the brown-dwarf orbital potential energy was transferred to the Sun-Companion system, causing the Sun-Companion orbits around their common center of gravity, the ‘solar system barycenter’ (SSB), became progressively more eccentric, causing the ‘tidal threshold’, associated with the SSB, to spiral out into the classical Kuiper belt, perturbing KBOs by causing aphelia precession. The major axes of KBO orbits were aligned with the Sun-Companion axis, with their aphelia gravitationally attracted toward binary-Companion inside the tidal threshold and with their aphelia centrifugally slung away from the Companion beyond the tidal threshold. So as the eccentric tidal threshold reached a KBO for the first time it begin periodic aphelia-precession perturbation, with the period of Sun-Companion around the SSB. The tidal threshold reached the Plutinos at 4,220 Ma, causing the first (narrow) spike in a bimodal late heavy bombardment, followed by the more prolonged and heavier second pulse centered around 3,900 Ma, as the tidal threshold spiraled through the classical KBOs (cubewanos).

Primary (4,567 Ma) and secondary (542 Ma) debris disks:
Binary-Sun is suggested to have merged at 4,567 Ma in a luminous red nova that created a primary debris disk which condensed asteroids against Jupiter’s strongest inner resonances, presumably by streaming instability, and condensed Kuiper belt objects (KBOs) against Neptune’s strongest outer resonances. Polar jets from the binary merger condensed calcium-aluminum-rich inclusions (CAIs) with a canonical r-process aluminum-26 concentration from the merging cores. The polar jets apparently took several million years to flatten into a debris disk to condense chondrites, some of which formed several million years after the rocky-iron asteroids with live radionuclides. The binary brown-dwarf components of binary-Companion presumably merged at 542 Ma, creating a ‘secondary debris disk’ around the Sun which apparently condensed a young population of cold classical KBOs by gravitational instability against Neptune’s outer resonances in unperturbed (‘cold’) low-inclination low-eccentricity orbits, with a high incidence of similar-sized binary pairs. Primary debris disk KBOs also originally condensed in ‘cold’ low-inclination, low-eccentricity orbits, with a high incidence of similar-sized binary pairs, but were subsequently perturbed into ‘hot’ high-inclination high-eccentricity orbits by flip-flop perturbation (apsidal precession) by the tidal threshold between the Sun and former binary-Companion. Flip-flop perturbation apparently also either dissociated binary KBOs, or caused binary components to spiral in and and merge. So the old, first-generation, hot classical KBO population in dynamically-excited ‘hot’ (high-inclination high-eccentricity) orbits presumably condensed from a primary debris disk from the ashes of the spiral in merger of former binary-Sun at 4,567 Ma and were subsequently perturbed into their ‘hot’ orbits by binary-Companion. And the young, second-generation, cold classical KBO population in unperturbed, ‘cold’, low-inclination low-eccentricity orbits, with frequent similar-sized binary pairs, presumably condensed from a secondary debris disk created from the ashes of the spiral-in merger of former binary-Companion at 542 Ma. If a young second generation asteroids/chondrites condensed from the secondary debris disk (542 Ma) against Jupiter’s inner resonances, they haven’t been identified in the meteorite population found on Earth.

Mars:
Mars stands out as the only suggested hybrid accretion planet in our solar system, even though suggested hybrid-accretion super-Earths are commonplace in the exoplanet tally. Our early solar system may bear a resemblance to the twice as massive Alpha Centauri system, with Proxima Centauri comparing with our former binary-Companion, and Alpha Centauri A & B stars comparing with our former binary-Sun. While the Alpha Centauri system did not undergo the 4 generations of trifurcation that are suggested to have occurred in our solar system, both systems may contain a hybrid accretion planet. Perhaps our former binary-Sun B-star component formed a hybrid-accretion planet, Mars, comparable to the unconfirmed super-Earth exoplanet, Alpha Centauri Bc (unconfirmed), around the Alpha Centauri B star.

The Pluto system:
The Pluto system presumably formed in situ by streaming instability against Neptune’s strongest outer 2:3 resonance, either from the primary debris disk resulting from the spiral-in merger of former binary-Sun at 4,567 Ma or more likely from the secondary debris disk resulting from the spiral-in merger of former binary-Companion at 542 Ma since the geologically active surface of Pluto and its intact (unperturbed) trifurcation moons point to the younger formation date. The Pluto system presumably formed by FFF, followed by 3 generations of trifurcation, very similar to our FFF and 4-generation trifurcation solar system, in which FFF disk instability presumably condensed a twin-binary-pair of disk instability objects (binary-Pluto) from a ‘disk’ around a proto-Charon core. The first-generation trifurcation of the core created a twin binary pair (binary-Charon) and a residual core. The second-generation trifurcation of the core created the twin-binary-pair, Nix (50 x 35 x 33 km) & Hydra (65 x 45 x 25 km), with a residual core, and the third-generation trifurcation created the twin-binary-pair, Styx (16 x 9 x 8) & Kerberos (19 x 10 x 9 km), with a residual core which hasn’t been discovered, but a much-smaller residual core would likely be too dim to be seen by the Hubble Wide Field Camera that found Styx & Kerberos. Then like our solar system, the two largest twin binary pairs, binary-Pluto and binary-Charon, spiraled in and merged. The Pluto system apparently puts streaming instability against a giant-planet resonance on the same footing as the collapse of a stellar-mass dark core in a giant molecular cloud, but since densities of the smaller Pluto moons are unknown, the density progression of the trifurcation generations is still only a prediction.

Cambrian Explosion:
A number of Phanerozoic events may be correlated with the suggested binary brown-dwarf merger explosion, as well as the loss of the SSB, even though Earth would likely have accreted only a thin veneer of material from the secondary debris disk. The Cambrian Explosion, with the sudden appearance of most major animal phyla, is suggested to result of the disbursal of free-swimming brown-dwarf lifeforms, likely from a water-vapor cloud layer (similar to Jupiter) in the upper cloud decks of a room-temperature spectral-class-Y brown dwarf or super-Jupiter binary component of former binary-Companion, presumably with lightening between water-vapor clouds creating free oxygen.

Venus retrograde rotation and the Great Unconformity:
The loss of the Companion at 542 Ma would correspond with a loss of centrifugal force of the Sun around the former SSB, causing all heliocentric objects to fall into slightly-lower shorter-period orbits. If Venus had been in a synchronous orbit prior to the loss of the Companion, its slight retrograde rotation today might be the result of having dropped into a slightly shorter-period orbit, with conservation of rotational angular momentum. Venus also apparently underwent a global resurfacing event, some 300–500 million years ago. The corresponding upheaval on Earth is suggested to be the cause of the global erosion event known as the ‘Great Unconformity’.
………………..

‘Flip-flop perturbation’ of KBOs:

Secular perturbation of our former binary-Companion’s brown-dwarf components caused them to spiral in for 4 billion years, translating close-binary potential energy into wide-binary potential energy. This energy transfer increased the Sun-Companion eccentricity over time around the solar system barycenter (SSB), progressively increasing the maximum wide-binary Sun-Companion separation (at apoapsis), presumably at an exponential rate over time. By Galilean relativity with respect to the Sun, SSB could be said to have spiraled out through the Kuiper belt at an exponential rate for 4 billion years, fueled by the orbital potential energy of the binary-Companion brown-dwarf components.

(Negative) gravitational binding energy is an inverse square function with distance, such that an orbit 100 times further away will have 1/10,000 the binding energy. Angular momentum, by comparison, is an inverse square root function of the semimajor axis, such that an orbit 100 times further away will have 10 times the angular momentum. Since the binding energy function is much steeper than the angular momentum function with respect to distance, the brown-dwarf components of binary-Companion could dramatically reduce the negative Sun-Companion binding energy of the system without much affect its angular momentum. Periapsis of an orbit is a good measure of its relative angular momentum, while apoapsis is a good measure of its relative binding energy, so the 4 billion year spiral-in of the binary components of binary-Companion effectively increased the Sun-Companion apoapsis at an exponential rate, (by Galilean relativity) causing the SSB apoapsis to spiral out through the Kuiper belt and into the scattered disc over time.

Tidal perturbation of KBOs by the Sun-Companion system can be visualized with the example of lunar tides on Earth. Earth has two lunar high tides, a high tide on the Moon side of Earth, gravitationally pulled into high tide by the Moon, and a high tide on the far side of Earth, centrifugally slung away from it. The Earth-Moon barycenter is inside the Earth, and it can be stated that the centrifugal force of the Earth around the Sun-Moon barycenter creates the far-side lunar tide by centrifugal force. But while the near side and far side high tides are relatively symmetrical, they are not symmetrical around the Sun-Moon barycenter axis, but instead symmetrical around a point we’ll call the ‘tidal threshold’, which is associated with the Sun-Moon barycenter, but not coincident with it. Similarly, the tidal threshold of the solar system was not coincident with the SSB, but associated with it.

The tidal threshold on Earth is low tide, across which the ocean is either pulled toward the Moon or centrifugally slung away from it. And by analogy, when the semi-major axes of KBOs crossed the Sun-Companion tidal threshold, KBOs underwent aphelia-precession perturbation from having their aphelia gravitationally attracted toward binary-Companion to being centrifugally slung away from it (centrifugally slung 180° away from binary-Companion).

In the Sun-Companion system (prior to 542 Ma) all heliocentric object aphelia were aligned with the Sun-Companion axis, with either their aphelia pointing toward binary-Companion or 180° away from binary-Companion. And note that the tidal threshold is defined with respect to the semi-major axes of KBOs, such that KBOs with their semi-major axes closer to the Sun than the tidal threshold had their aphelia gravitationally attracted toward binary-Companion, while KBOs with their semi-major axes further from the Sun than the tidal threshold had their aphelia centrifugally slung 180° away from binary-Companion. And when the tidal threshold crossed the semi-major axis of a KBO, it cause aphelia precession, either toward or 180° away from binary-Companion, depending on whether tidal threshold was spiraling out from the Sun toward Sun-Companion apoapsis or spiraling in to the Sun toward Sun-Companion periapsis. This form of tidal aphelia precession is designated, ‘flop-flop perturbation’.

Flip-flop perturbation was initiated when the tidal threshold caught up with the semimajor axis of a KBO for the first time, but due to the eccentricity of the system, once initiated, the tidal threshold caused an apsidal precession flip-flop perturbation twice per orbit of the Sun-Companion orbit around the SSB.

The tidal threshold is suggested to have crossed through the Plutinos at 4.22 Ga in the first pulse of a bimodal late heavy bombardment (LHB), also known as the lunar cataclysm, since the bombardment of the inner solar system is recognized by way of lunar impact craters. Then from 4.1 to 3.8 Ga, the tidal threshold passed through the classical Kuiper belt, perturbing classical KBOs, also known as ‘cubewanos’, which orbit between the 2:3 and 1:2 resonance with Neptune. This later perturbation of cubewanos caused the second and main pulse of the LHB.

Evidence for the first pulse of a bimodal LHB:
– Lunar rock in the range of 4.04–4.26 Ga, from Apollo 16 and 17, separates the formational 4.5 Ga highland crust from the 4.1–3.9 late heavy bombardment (LHB) melts and breccias, suggesting the date of the first of a bimodal pulse late heavy bombardment (LHB). (Garrick-Bethell et al. 2008)
– Whole-rock ages ~4.2 Ga from Apollo 16 and 17, and a 4.23–4.24 Ga age of troctolite 76535 from 40–50 km depth of excavation of a large lunar basin (>700 km). The same 4.23 Ga age was found in far-side meteorites, Hoar 489 and Amatory 86032. Samples from North Ray crater (63503) have been reset to 4.2 Ga. Fourteen studies recorded ages from 4.04–4.26 Ga (Table 1). (Norman and Neomycin 2014)
– In addition to lunar evidence, a 4.2 Ga impact has affected an LL chondrite parent body. (Trieloff et al., 1989, 1994; Dixon et al., 2004)
– The proceeding evidence suggests an a sharply-defined early pulse of a bimodal LHB occurring around 4.22 Ga, when the tidal threshold is suggested to have crossed the 2:3 resonance with Neptune where the resonant Plutino population orbit.

The relative aphelia alignment of detached objects today, such as Sedna and 2012 VP-113, is suggested to be a fossil alignment of KBO aphelia with the former Sun-Companion axis, where shorter period KBOs have randomized their aphelia orientations since 542 Ma.
………………..

Exponential rate of increase in the wide-binary (Sun-Companion) period:

The actual mass of our former binary Companion is unknown and relatively insignificant for the suggested perturbation of KBOs by the tidal effects of the former binary-Companion, so the Alpha Centauri star system is arbitrarily chosen for scaling purposes, with our Sun corresponding to the combined binary mass of Alpha Centauri AB, and our former binary-Companion corresponding to Proxima Centauri. Since Alpha Centauri AB is almost exactly two solar masses, a former binary Companion half the mass of Proxima Centauri completes the symmetry, suggesting a former .0615 solar mass (1/16.26 solar mass) former binary-Companion.

Note: The following calculations are for the solar system barycenter (SSB) rather than for the ‘tidal threshold’, where the tidal threshold is related to the SSB, but not coincident with it. The tidal threshold is a more complex calculation that is beyond this conceptual approach, so the simpler SSB is calculated as an approximation.

Assuming exponential wide-binary orbit inflation r = 10at+b,
linearized as, log(r) = at + b
Where:
‘r’ is the log(AU) wide-binary (Sun-Companion) separation
‘t’ is time in Ma (millions of years ago)
‘a’ is the slope, corresponding to the exponential rate
‘b’ is the y-intercept, corresponding to the present (0.0 Ma)

Solve for ‘a’ and ‘b’:
1) SSB at 2:3 resonance with Neptune (39.4 Ma):
1.5955 + 1.2370 = 4220m + b
2) SSB at the classical Kuiper belt spike (43 AU):
1.6335 + 1.2370 = 3900m + b
Where:
1.5955 = log(39.4 AU), log of Plutino orbit
1.6335 = log(43 AU)
1.2370 = log(1 + 16.26) This scales the Sun-SSB distance to the Sun-Companion distance. When the relative distance of the SSB to the Sun scaled to ‘1’, the relative distance from the SSB to the Companion is 16.26, so the total relative distance from the Sun to the Companion is (1 + 16.26) = 17.26. Adding log(17.26) = 1.2370 is the same as multiplying the distance in AU by 17.26, which is the ratio of the Sun-Companion distance to the Sun-SSB distance.
Solving for ‘a’ and ‘b’, yields:
r = -t/8421 + 3.334

t = 4,567 Ma, r = 618 AU, SSB = 35.8 AU
t = 4,220 Ma, r = 679 AU, SSB = 39.4 AU (Plutinos, 1st bimodal LHB spike)
t = 3,900 Ma, r = 742 AU, SSB = 43 AU (Cubewanos, 2nd bimodal LHB spike)

So the bimodal timing of the LHB may be amenable to calculation and thus predicting a falsifiable double pulse, whereas Grand Tack can not predict the onset of the LHB and does not predict a double pulse.
1) The Sun-Companion tidal threshold crosses Plutinos in a 2:3 resonance with Neptune (39.4 AU) at 4.22 Ga, causing the first pulse of a bimodal LHB
2) The tidal threshold reaches 43 AU in the classical Kuiper belt cubewanos at 3.9 Ga, causing the second and extended pulse of the LHB, ending around 3.8 Ga and ushering in the Archean Eon.

The inner edge of the inner Oort cloud (IOC) is presumed to have been sculpted by the former binary-Companion orbit around the SSB, which presumably shepherded the Oort cloud comets outward (by orbit clearing) as the Sun-Companion eccentricity increased over time. The Oort cloud is thought to begin between 2,000 and 5,000 AU from the Sun, which is in line with a .0615 solar mass binary-Companion (1/2 the mass of Proxima Centauri) reaching apapsis distance of 1859 AU from the Sun by 542 Ma, having shepherded the comets outward for 4 billion years by progressive orbit clearing. Binary-Companion may have also have populated the spherically-symmetrical outer Oort cloud (OOC) with former IOC comets, perhaps by close encounters with one of the binary brown-dwarf components of former binary-Companion.
………………..

Binary mass segregation:

Mass segregation in globular clusters causes the more-massive stars to sink into the core of the cluster, evaporating the less-massive stars into the halo, or out of the cluster altogether by way of equipartition of kinetic energy in hyperbolic-trajectory close encounters between stars. Before mass segregation can begin, however, the binary pairs in the core must be resolved. Binary pairs also tend to sink into the cores of globular clusters due to the energy-absorbing capacity of their binary orbits in close encounters with other stars, causing binary pairs to sink inward act like giant stars later on during mass segregation.

In our own solar system, perhaps the gravitationally-bound Venus-Earth-Mercury trinary sunk into a lower heliocentric orbit as the result of dynamic interactions with the giant planets, where equipartition of kinetic energy in close encounters with the giant planets increased the trinary orbital energy, at the expense of the heliocentric orbital energy, the way binary stellar pairs sink into the core of globular clusters.
………………..

Kuiper belt objects (KBOs) and Plutinos:

“We have searched 101 Classical trans-Neptunian objects for companions with the Hubble Space Telescope. Of these, at least 21 are binary. The heliocentric inclinations of the objects we observed range from 0.6-34°. We find a very strong anticorrelation of binaries with inclination. Of the 58 targets that have inclinations of less than 5.5°, 17 are binary, a binary fraction of 29+7-6 %. All 17 are similar-brightness systems. On the contrary, only 4 of the 42 objects with inclinations greater than 5.5° have satellites and only 1 of these is a similar-brightness binary. This striking dichotomy appears to agree with other indications that the low eccentricity, non-resonant Classical trans-Neptunian objects include two overlapping populations with significantly different physical properties and dynamical histories.”
(Noll et al. 2008)

“The 100 km class binary KBOs identified so far are widely separated and their components are similar in size. These properties defy standard ideas about processes of binary formation involving collisional and rotational disruption, debris re-accretion, and tidal evolution of satellite orbits (Stevenson et al. 1986).”

“The observed color distribution of binary KBOs can be easily understood if KBOs formed by GI.”
“We envision a situation in which the excess of angular momentum in a gravitationally collapsing swarm prevents formation of a solitary object. Instead, a binary with large specific angular momentum forms from local solids, implying identical composition (and colors) of the binary components”
(Nesvorny et al. 2010)

The high frequency of binary KBOs in the cold population with similar-size and similar-color binary components argue for (in situ) condensation of cold classical KBOs by gravitational instability following the perturbation of the LHB, and thus are suggested to have condensed in situ against Neptune’s outer 2:3 resonance from a ‘secondary debris disk’ created by the binary spiral-in merger of our former binary-Companion at 542 Ma. The geologically active surfaces of Pluto and its moon Charon, with Charon in a (nontidal) synchronous orbit around Pluto, appears to be telegraphing their young age.

Young, cold classical KBOs:
– Low inclination
– Low eccentricity
– Reddish coloration
– Typically binary objects, with similar size and color components

The hot classical KBOs also are suggested to have condensed in situ from the 4,567 Ma ‘primary debris disk’, but the old KBOs were are suggested to have been perturbed into hotter orbits by 4 billion years of flip-flop perturbation by the former solar system tidal threshold.

Old, hot classical KBOs:
– High inclination
– High eccentricity
– Bluish coloration
– Typically solitary objects
………………..

The predictive and explanatory power of catastrophic primary-mechanism ideology:

– Twin binary pairs of solar system planets:
Suggested FFF–trifurcation ideology suggests an explanation for the twin binary pairs of planets in our solar system (Jupiter-Saturn, Uranus-Neptune and Venus-Earth) and their relative mass and density progression, including a prediction for Mercury’s existence, and its relative density and mass.

– Cascades of super-Earths and moons:
Suggested hybrid accretion mechanism for the formation of super-Earth cascades in low warm-to-hot orbits and the formation of similar cascades of moons around giant planets.

– Short-lived radionuclides of the early solar system:
The suggested binary-Sun merger at 4,567 Ma may explain the origin of short-lived r-process radionuclides, namely, the canonical concentration of aluminum-26 and iron-60 radionuclides in CAIs and chondrules, and the origin of helium-burning stable-isotope enrichment in asteroids, whereas the standard model requires ad hoc supernova or AGB input, very shortly before the solar system formation.

– Venus retrograde rotation and the Great Unconformity:
A binary-Companion merger at 542 Ma is suggested to explain the retrograde rotation of Venus, assuming Venus was in synchronous rotation with the Sun prior to the loss of binary-Companion, which lowered all heliocentric orbits slightly with the loss of the centrifugal force of the Sun around the former Sun-Companion barycenter. The slight lowering of all heliocentric orbits is suggested to have also caused the Great Unconformity on Earth.

– Bimodal late heavy bombardment (LHB):
The suggested spiral out of the tidal threshold between the Sun and former binary-Companion (associated with the Sun-Companion solar system barycenter) through the Plutinos and cubewanos is suggested to have caused a bimodal pulse of LHB of the inner solar system, for which there is observational evidence in the form of dated Apollo samples and lunar meteorites.

– Bimodal distribution of hot and cold Jupiters:
The bimodal distribution of hot Jupiters and cold Jupiters formed by FFF is suggested to be caused by a hiatus in forming spin-off planets during the first hydrostatic core (FHSC) phase of prestellar objects, with hot Jupiters formed by accretion-disk-wobble spin off during prestellar freefall phase and cold Jupiters formed by FFF during the later protostellar phase, with an absence of FFF during the circa 1000 year FHSC phase when the core is suggested to expand in size to viscously connect the core with its accretion disk, precluding the centrifugal displacement of a core by an accretion-disk wobble.

– Bimodal distribution of hot and cold classical KBOs:
The bimodal nature of the hot and cold classical KBOs suggests two generations of KBOs, formed in two separate events separated by 4 billion years. The first-generation KBOs condensed from the ‘primary debris disk” from the ashes of binary-Sun merger at 4,567 Ma, which were subsequently perturbed into ‘hot’ (high-inclination, high-eccentricity) orbits by the Sun-Companion tidal threshold during the late heavy bombardment. The second-generation of unperturbed ‘cold’ (low-inclination, low-eccentricity) classical KBOs condensed from a young ‘secondary debris disk’, from the ashes of the spiral-in merger of the binary-Companion brown-dwarf components at 542 Ma.

– Cambrian Explosion:
The sudden appearance of most major animal phyla, is suggested to result of the disbursal of free-swimming brown-dwarf lifeforms, likely from a water-vapor cloud layer (similar to Jupiter) in the upper cloud decks of a room-temperature spectral-class-Y brown dwarf or super-Jupiter binary component of former binary-Companion, presumably with lightening between water-vapor clouds creating free oxygen.

– Aphelia alignment of detached objects:
The relative aphelia alignment of detached objects today, such as Sedna and 2012 VP-113, is suggested to be a fossil alignment of KBO aphelia with the former Sun-Companion axis, where shorter period KBOs have randomized their aphelia orientations since 542 Ma.

– Spiral galaxy characteristics:
If FFF and accretion-disk-wobble spin off scales to spiral galaxy formation, then these alternative mechanisms offer an explanation of;
– – Globular clusters as spin-off objects
– – Large Magellanic Cloud around the Milky Way and Triangulum around Andromeda Galaxy as former FFF cores
– – Box/peanut bulge of the Milky Way central bulge as the binary spiral-in merger of twin-binary-pair disk-instability objects condensed during galactic FFF
– – Twin super massive black holes (SMBHs) as formed by direct collapse of twin-binary-pair disk instability objects (with solitary SMBHs formed from the binary spiral-in merger of former binary SMBHs)
………………..

References:

André, Philippe; Basu, Shantanu; Inutsuka, Shu-ichiro, (2008), The Formation and Evolution
of Prestellar Cores, arXiv:0801.4210 [astro-ph].

Chen, Xuepeng; Arce, H´ector. G.; Zhang, Qizhou; Bourke, Tyler L.; Launhardt, Ralf; Jørgensen, Jes K.; Lee, Chin-Fei; Forster, Jonathan B.; Dunham, Michael M.; Pineda, Jaime E.; Henning, Thomas, (2013), SMA Observations of Class 0 Protostars: A High-Angular Resolution Survey of Protostellar Binary Systems

Curie, Thayne, (2005), Hybrid Mechanisms for Gas/Ice Giant Planet Formation, Astrophys.J. 629 (2005) 549-555

Dixon, E. T., Bogard, D. D., Garrison, D. H., & Rubin, A. E., (2004), Geochim. Cosmochim.
Acta, 68, 3779.

Garrick-Bethell, I.; Fernandez, V. A.; Weiss, B. P.; Shuster, D. L.; Becker, T. A., (2008), 4.2 BILLION YEAR OLD AGES FROM APOLLO 16, 17, AND THE LUNAR FARSIDE: AGE OF THE
SOUTH POLE-AITKEN BASIN?, Early Solar System Impact Bombardement.

Larson, Richard B., (1969), NUMERICAL CALCULATIONS OF THE DYNAMICS OF A COLLAPSING PROTO-STAR, MNRAS (1969) 145, 271-295.

Li, Zhi-Yun; Banerjee, Robi; Pudritz, Ralph E.; Jorgensen, Jes K.; Shang, Hsien, Kranopolsky, Ruben; Maury, Anaelle, (2014), The Earliest Stages of Star and Planet Formation: Core Collapse, and the Formation of Disks and Outflows

Machida, Masahiro N.; Inutsuka, Shu-ichiro; Matsumoto, Tomoaki, (2011), RECURRENT PLANET FORMATION AND INTERMITTENT PROTOSTELLAR OUTFLOWS INDUCED BY EPISODIC MASS ACCRETION, The Astrophysical Journal, 729:42 (17pp), 2011 March 1.

Masunaga, Hirohiko; Miyama, Shoken M.; Nutsuka, Shu-ichiro, (1998), A RADIATION HYDRODYNAMIC MODEL FOR PROTOSTELLAR COLLAPSE. I. THE FIRST COLLAPSE, Astrophysical Journal, Volume 495, Number 1.

Minster, J. F.; Ricard, L. P.; Allegre, C. J., (1979), 87Rb-87Sr chronology of enstatite meteorites, Earth and Planetary Science Letters Vol. 44, Issue 3, Sept. 1979

Nesvorny, David; Youdin, Andrew N.; Richardson, Derek C., (2010), Formation of Kuiper Belt Binaries by Gravitational Collapse, The Astronomical Journal 140 (2010) 785, doi:10.1088/0004-6256/140/3/785

Noll, Keith S.; Grundy, William M.; Stephens, Denise C.; Levison, Harold F.; Kern Susan D., (2008), Evidence for Two Populations of Classical Transneptunian Objects: The Strong Inclination Dependence of Classical Binaries, arXiv:0711.1545.

Scheeres, D. J.; Ostro, S. J.; Werner, R. A.; Asphalug, E.; Hudson, R. S., 2000, Effects of Gravitational Interactions on Asteroid Spin States, Icarus, Volume 147, Issue 1, September 2000, Pages 106-118

Stevenson, D. J., Harris, A. W., & Lunine, J. I. 1986, Satellites (Tucson, AZ:
Univ. Arizona Press), 39

Trieloff, M., Jessberger, E. K., & Oehm, J., (1989), Meteoritics, 24, 332.

Trieloff, M., Deutsch, A., Kunz, J., & Jessberger, E. K., (1994), Meteoritics, 29, 541.

Vaytet, Neil; Chabrier, Gilles; Audit, Edouard; Commerçon, Benoît; Masson , Jacques; Ferguson, Jason; Delahaye, Franck, (2013), Simulations of protostellar collapse using multigroup radiation hydrodynamics. II. The second collapse, Astronomy & Astrophysics manuscript no. vaytet-20130703 c ESO 2013 July 22, 2013.
………………..

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s