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 forming more predictive, more falsifiable and less ad hoc ideologies than the standard models.

The following planetesimal to stellar formation mechanisms will be examined conceptually:
– Flip-flop fragmentation (FFF)
– Trifurcation
– Streaming instability and hybrid accretion

– FFF suggests that excess angular momentum in collapsing dark cores may create accretion disks that are much more massive than their diminutive cores, and thus the accretion disk inertially dominates the system. Inertial dominance is suggested to take the form of a disk instability which condenses 1 or 2 objects more massive than the central core, resulting in an inertial flip-flop in which the diminutive core is injected into a satellite orbit around the much-larger disk instability objects. These former core satellites evolve into gas/ice giant planets, brown dwarf (planets) or companion stars.

– Trifurcation suggests that when FFF condenses a twin binary pair of disk instability objects, hyperbolic trajectory close encounters between the diminutive core and its much larger twin binary pair (of disk instability objects) causes a kinetic energy transfer from the larger twin binary pair to the smaller former core by the well-documented process of equipartition, which ultimately evaporates the core into a circumbinary orbit. This alternative ideology also suggests that hyperbolic trajectory close encounters also tend to transfer rotational kinetic energy to the core, which may spin up to the point of distorting the core into a bar-mode instability. Still further rotational pumping may cause the bar-mode arms to pinch off into separate Roche spheres, orbiting around a diminutive residual core in a process designated, ‘trifurcation’. In turn, trifurcation can lead to next-generation trifurcation of the residual core, forming multi generations of twin binary pairs, which is suggested to be the origin of the three sets of the twin binary pairs of planets in our solar system, namely, Jupiter-Saturn, Uranus-Neptune, and Venus-Earth, with Mercury as the final residual core.

– Hybrid accretion (Thayne Curie 2005) is suggested by Thayne Curie to be a hybrid planet formation mechanism composed of planetesimals formed by gravitational instability (GI), with planets formed by core accretion of the GI planetesimals. Alternatively, hybrid accretion is suggested here to specifically form super-Earths 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 ‘hybrid’ referring to the combination of streaming instability and core accretion in the formation of hybrid-accretion objects. ‘Cascades’ of super-Earths may 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 larger planemo moons of Uranus. Additionally, asteroids are suggested to have ‘condensed’ by streaming instability against Jupiter’s strongest inner resonances, and Kuiper belt objects (KBOs) are suggested to have condensed by streaming instability against Neptune’s strongest outer resonances.
………………..

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 ice-/gas-giant planets, brown dwarf (planets) and companion stars around a larger central star, formed by a flip-flop process in which the system turns itself inside out. This suggests that ice-/gas-giant planets, brown dwarf (planets), and companion stars are the progenitors of their host star, and thus older than the host star. Satellite objects formed by FFF are suggested to form in systems when the accretion disk inertially dominates the system, that is when the accretion disk is much more massive than than its central prestellar/protostellar object.

FFF (disk instability) of massive disks surrounding diminutive prestellar or protostellar objects is suggested to occur by way of (spiral) density waves, where the mode of the density wave dictates the type of disk instability. Two types of density-wave modes are suggested:
– an (m = 1 mode) asymmetrical density wave, and
– an (m = 2 mode) symmetrical density wave.
A lopsided asymmetrical (m = 1 mode) density wave that undergoes disk instability is suggested to condense a solitary object from the accretion disk, while a symmetrical (m = 2 mode) density wave is suggested to condense a twin binary pair from the accretion disk.

If an (m = 1 mode) asymmetrical density wave of a massive disk overlying a diminutive core undergoes disk instability, the outer portion of the disk is suggested to clump (collapse) into a larger overall mass than that of the central core, acquiring inertial dominance of the system. The greater (overlying) mass of the disk instability turns the system inside out, injecting the less-massive core into a satellite orbit around the more-massive disk instability, where the disk instability takes the form of an incipient prestellar core surrounded by its own accretion disk.

A pre-/proto-stellar system in which the overlying accretion disk is much more massive than its (diminutive) core is suggested to be inherently unstable to asymmetrical perturbations of the disk by (spiral) density waves, where the diminutive core is unable to damp down disk inhomogeneities in the form of density waves from amplifying into runaway disk instability. The overlying mass of a massive disk is gravitationally drawn to the center of the system by its gravitational potential energy, while being held at bay by its angular momentum, but if a density wave promotes gravitational collapse of the outer disk which releases more potential energy than is consumed by injecting the core and its remnant inner disk into a satellite orbit, this catastrophic flip-flop process will be thermodynamically favored, and it’s suggested to be thermodynamically favored when the disk instability has much greater mass than the central core. This catastrophic flip-flop process that turns the system inside out, designated flip-flop fragmentation (FFF), would catastrophically increase the system entropy by converting gravitational potential energy to thermal energy, where the thermal energy is quickly radiated out of the system.

Following FFF the inertially displaced core continues to collapse to form a gas-/ice-giant planet (mini-Neptune to super-Jupiter), or larger brown dwarf, or still-larger companion star. Multiple gas/ice giant planets [not formed by trifurcation (see Trifurcation subsection)] presumably form by repeated (sequential) instances of ‘asymmetrical FFF’, in which the accretion disk is repeatedly recharged with infalling gas from its surrounding envelope. Since FFF planets/brown dwarf/companion stars tend to stabilize the system against further FFF-type disk instability, a core is ultimately able to attain stellar proportions even in the midst of a dense nebular envelope with continuous infall.

Mini-Neptunes (also known as gas dwarf planets) are defined by a mass range of about 6–10 Earth masses and may be the most common type of exoplanet in the universe. Their hydrogen/helium atmospheres suggest the lower limit of planets formed by asymmetrical FFF, although there may be no bright-line cut off between high-end super-Earths formed by hybrid accretion and low-end mini-Neptunes with tenuous H-He atmospheres formed by asymmetrical FFF. The rocky cores of mini-Neptunes are presumably formed by sedimentation of dust and ice during the circa 100,000 year prestellar phase, perhaps forming super-Earth-sized cores of rock and ice that survive core spin off, even if the core loses the vast majority of its hydrogen and helium blanket during the flip-flop process.

Turning a system inside out that already contains one or more giant planets from a previous FFF generation may inject the earlier generation giant planets into chaotic orbits, which may explain the occasional distant and retrograde orbits discovered in star systems with multiple giant exoplanets.

Following the final instance of asymmetrical FFF, gas from the disk and envelope spirals inward past the giant planets, decreasing the peripheral mass while increasing the central mass, which pulls the proto planets into tighter orbits while conserving their original orbital energy and angular momentum. This accretionary bulking up of the central star may reduce the semimajor axes of FFF planets by a factor of perhaps 10 or more. But this inward migration of the giant planets formed by FFF is attributable to the bulking up of the central star and inherently different from the suggested planetary migration suggested by pebble/core accretion theory. Under pebble/core accretion theory, planetary migration requires appreciable angular momentum transfer to the accretion disk by giant planets to explain the discovery of hot Jupiters in low hot orbits, well below the Goldilocks zone of giant planet formation by pebble/core accretion, whereas FFF suggests no appreciable angular momentum transfer from-or-to the accretion disk by giant planets.

If an (m = 2 mode) symmetrical density wave of a massive disk overlying a diminutive core undergoes disk instability, twin density-wave compressions may undergo twin disk-instability collapse to form a twin binary pair of disk instability objects which are each much more massive than the central core, designated ‘symmetrical FFF’.

A twin binary pair of disk instability objects formed by symmetrical FFF do not immediately assume a central position in the stellar system, as does a solitary disk instability object formed by asymmetrical FFF. Instead, the triple system undergoes a transitional period of ‘interplay’ between the larger twin binary pair of disk instability objects and the less-massive core, in the form of chaotic orbits. During interplay, orbital close encounters between the core and its twin-binary-pair components tends to equalize the kinetic energy in a process known as ‘equipartition’. A dynamic process that tends to equalize kinetic energy in close encounters causes the less-massive component to exit a close encounter with increased speed, while the more-massive component exits with reduced speed. Over time, equipartition evaporates the less-massive core into a circumbinary orbit around the twin binary pair, while the twin binary pair (of disk instability objects) sink inward to conserve system energy and angular momentum, translating a triple system with interplay into an hierarchical triple system.

The triple-star Alpha Centauri system is suggested to be a good example of symmetrical FFF, with diminutive Proxima Centauri in a circumbinary orbit around the much-larger twin binary pair of Alpha Centauri A and Alpha Centauri B.

L1448 IRS3B:
The Class 0 protostar system, L1448 IRS3B is suggested to have formed by symmetrical FFF. 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) 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.

Symmetrical FFF appears to occur late in the protostellar life cycle, after the accretion disk has attained stellar proportions and the central protostar reaches a red dwarf mass, at least for yellow-dwarf-mass star systems such as Alpha Centauri. By comparison, asymmetrical FFF is likely to occur much earlier in the prestellar phase or early Class 0 protostellar phase when the core is on the order of a Jupiter mass and the accretion disk has perhaps 1 percent of a solar mass, or less. Apparently, an m = 2 mode density wave requires an extended accretion disk with a radius of 100s of AU, by which time the central protostar has attained red dwarf proportions.
………………..

Trifurcation:

Our solar system’s three twin binary pairs of planets, consisting of Jupiter-Saturn, Uranus-Neptune and Venus-Earth, suggest a third planet formation mechanism, designated ‘trifurcation’. Trifurcation is suggested to occur during interplay following symmetrical FFF, in which equipartition causes the more-massive twin-binary-pair components to transfer kinetic energy to the smaller core, but also causes a transfer of rotational kinetic energy, causing the core to ‘spin up’, that is, causing the core to increase its rotation rate as the core is progressively evaporated into a circumbinary orbit. If spin up of the core from close encounters during interplay causes the core to exceed the attractive force of self gravity, the core may assume a bilaterally-symmetrical bar-mode instability, which may progress to the point of trifurcation, where the bilaterally-symmetrical bar-mode arms pinch off to form a twin binary pair orbiting a much-smaller residual core.

In the case of the Alpha Centauri system, suggested formation by symmetrical FFF does not appear to have led to trifurcation; however, our own solar system is suggested to have undergone 4 successive generations of trifurcation, beginning with a suggested first-generation red dwarf trifurcation, yielding a twin binary pair consisting of a former brown-dwarf companion to the Sun + a super-Jupiter-sized residual core. The super Jupiter core underwent a second-generation trifurcation, ‘spinning off’ the twin binary pair of Jupiter-Saturn + a super-Neptune-sized residual core. The super Neptune core underwent a third-generation trifurcation, spinning off the twin binary pair of Uranus-Neptune + a super-Earth-sized residual core. Finally the super Earth core underwent a forth-generation trifurcation spinning off the twin binary pair Venus-Earth + Mercury as the final residual core.

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. The pumping of rotational kinetic energy into the core resulting in spin up is suggested to yield another object supported by computer modeling, that of a ‘bar-mode instability’. The suggestion of trifurcation ventures beyond these two calculationally-supported models into the unsupported suggestion that additional pumping of rotational kinetic energy into a bar-mode instability will lead to trifurcation, causing the bilaterally-symmetrical bar-mode arms to gravitationally pinch off and form a twin binary pair of objects within their respective Roche spheres in Keplerian orbit around a diminutive residual core within its own Roche sphere. Immediately following trifurcation, the system resembles a compact version of symmetrical FFF, with a massive twin binary pair orbiting a diminutive (residual) core, where orbital interplay and equipartition evaporate the diminutive residual core into a circumbinary orbit around the pinched off twin binary pair. And as in asymmetrical FFF, hyperbolic-trajectory close encounters between the residual core with the much-larger components of the pinched-off twin binary pair cause the residual core to spin up, potentially leading to a next-generation trifurcation, so trifurcation promotes next-generation trifurcation, but on the proportionately smaller scale of the residual core.

While our solar system, which is suggested to have undergone 4 generations of trifurcation, is quite unusual, symmetrical FFF without trifurcation may be quite common, with our closest neighbor, Alpha Centauri, being a perfect example, particularly considering that many twin binary pairs may merge to form a solitary central star orbited by a much-smaller companion star. So while symmetrical FFF may only rarely induce trifurcation in the central dwarf star, if it does so, multiple generations of trifurcation are the likely result, assuming that a trifurcated triple subsystem is much more favorable to inducing next-generation trifurcation than a symmetrical FFF triple system is to inducing first-generation trifurcation. This suggests that while our solar system may be unusual, when trifurcation does occur, 4 generations of trifurcation may not be an uncommon outcome.

The dynamics in multiple trifurcation generations may become somewhat chaotic, with the previous-generation twin binary pair tending to evaporate the next-generation twin binary pair outward, while the next-generation residual core tends to make the next-generation twin binary pair spiral inward. In our solar system, apparently the two largest twin binary pairs, former binary-Sun (formed from the original symmetrical FFF) and former binary-Companion (formed from the first-generation trifurcation), were induced to spiral in and merge, with former binary-Sun merging at 4,567 Ma and former binary-Companion merging at 542 Ma. (Apparently an asymmetrical merger explosion gave the newly-merged Companion escape velocity from the Sun.)

Trifurcation makes is amenable to a number of predictions (unlike pebble/core accretion), such as planets forming in twin binary pairs, a size regression with higher generations, an increasing density progression with increasing generations, and likely a mass-dependent isotope fractionation progression. The isotope fractionation progression may be complex, however, since heavier gaseous isotopes may tend to be centrifugally slung into the bar-mode arms, winding up in the twin binary pair, while heavier solid isotopes may tend to sink into the residual core.

FFF and trifurcation are suggested catastrophic mechanisms for increasing system entropy by catastrophically projecting mass inward. While trifurcation reduces subsystem entropy by trifurcating a residual core, this decrease in entropy must be more than offset by an increase in entropy of the larger system, generally by causing a larger twin binary pair to spiral inward.
………………..

‘Pinch-off FFF’:

Since Earth’s Moon has a proportionately smaller iron core than Earth itself, the Moon apparently did not form by trifurcation of a proto-Earth, otherwise it should have a proportionately-larger iron core than Earth, like Mercury has. The lower-density of the Moon compared to the Earth suggests an alternative formation mechanism, designated ‘pinch-off FFF’, which is suggested to be an added layer of complexity occurring within the trifurcation process. If the pinched off bar-mode arm should contain excessive angular momentum, preventing direct collapse into a solitary twin-binary-pair component, the pinched off mass may undergo an intermediate stage similar to symmetrical FFF in which the pinched off mass condenses into a twin binary pair around a diminutive core. Dynamical evolution quickly causes the diminutive core to spiral out into a circumbinary orbit as the twin binary pair spirals in to merge. Thus Earth’s moon could be the diminutive core of pinch-off FFF, with Earth as its twin binary pair that spiraled in to merge and form our solitary planet.

While there’s very little difference between trifurcation and pinch-off FFF, the small degree of difference may allow for a lower-density Moon, compared to Earth. The additional mechanism also avoids the uncomfortable position of suggesting that the larger twin binary pair components of a trifurcation may undergo ‘cousin trifurcation’, where cousin trifurcation would be defined as trifurcation of twin binary pair components. Unsupported cousin trifurcation would also have to explain away why the twin binary components always appear to spiral in to merge and form a solitary giant planet, whereas the twin binary pairs of residual cores spiral out and separate. For these two reasons, a separate pinch-off FFF mechanism is suggested, rejecting the idea of cousin trifurcation (of twin-binary-pair components).

Saturn’s moon Titan is also presumably a pinch-off FFF moon. Even after losing most of its gaseous component by volatile evaporative loss, Titan is still much-much larger than the subsequently-formed presumably hybrid-accretion moons, namely, Mimas, Enceladus, Tethys, Dione, Rhea, and Iapetus.

At Jupiter, the pinch-off FFF super moon appears to have undergone two generations of trifurcation, forming the first-generation twin binary pair, Ganymede (1.936 g/cm3) and Callisto (1.8344 g/cm3), and the second-generation twin binary pair, Io (3.528 g/cm3) and Europa (3.013 g/cm3), with an expected density progression with higher generation trifurcations. There is a missing residual core of Io and Europa, however, in the assumption of two generations of trifurcation of a pinch-off FFF super moon, possibly having subsequently collided with either Io or with Jupiter itself.

If binary spiral-in mergers squirt out core material in polar jets then enstatite chondrites, which lie on the terrestrial fractionation line, may be the macroscopic result of the twin binary pair merger of former binary-Earth. Most carbonaceous chondrites presumably condensed from the ‘primary debris disk’ formed from the binary spiral-in merger of former binary-Sun, although the more-primitive CI chondrites may have largely condensed from presolar material. Ordinary chondrites, however, with their elevated ∆17O may have a large input from a different binary trifurcation planet, perhaps former binary-Jupiter and/or former binary-Saturn.

And Triton appears to be Neptune’s oversized pinch-off FFF moon, despite its retrograde orbit. Venus and Uranus are apparently missing pinch-off FFF moons, assuming the moons of Uranus formed by hybrid accretion, which suggests that Venus and Uranus either collapsed into solitary objects without undergoing an intermediary excess-angular-momentum pinch-off FFF phase, or they lost their pinch-off FFF moons.
………………..

Hot Jupiter and cold Jupiter core-spin-off planets:

The distinct bimodal distribution of gas-giant exoplanets into hot Jupiters in low ‘hot’ orbits and ‘cold Jupiters’ in much-higher ‘cold’ orbits suggests a distinct mechanism, rather than indistinct planetary migration, where planetary migration favored by pebble/core accretion theory has difficulty explaining the distinct bimodal clumping.

Cold Jupiters are suggested here to be the product of asymmetrical FFF during the (presumably Class 0) protostellar phase of a protostar, by which time the accretion disk has sufficient mass and diameter to inertially displace (flip-flop) the former core to a significant distance from the clumping disk instability.

Hot Jupiters, by comparison, are suggested here to be the product of asymmetrical FFF during a earlier prestellar phase of a nascent star system, where the prestellar system has a correspondingly smaller accretion disk than more-mature protostellar systems. And the prestellar core correspondingly experiences significantly less flip-flop displacement from the clumping disk instability, compared to more-mature protostellar systems with larger and more-massive accretion disks.

And the distinct bimodal separation between the two populations is suggested to be caused by a hiatus in asymmetrical FFF during the circa 1000 year first hydrostatic core (FHSC) phase. The puffiness of the FHSC phase which presumably viscously connects the core with the accretion disk, is suggested to damp down disk inhomogeneities from running away into full-fledged disk instability. A nascent disk instability is suggested to be predicated on an equal and opposite reaction of the core, presumably to conserve system energy and angular momentum, so a sticky core during the puffy FHSC phase presumably prevents the necessary positive core-disk feedback.

In the core of a prestellar object, the potential energy released by gas undergoing freefall accretion is radiated away, largely by dust and chemical compounds, notably 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. Following the fleetingly-brief second collapse, the prestellar object transitions to a ‘second hydrostatic core’ (SHSC) wherein it becomes known as a protostar.

The outer shock front of the FHSC phase extends out to radii on the order of ~ 5–10 AU (Tsitali et al. 2013). This enormous hydrostatic diameter of the FHSC phase is suggested to create sufficient viscous drag between the core and the inner edge of the accretion disk so as to largely preclude core spin off during this puffy transitional phase, thus creating a circa 1000 year hiatus in core spin off.

By comparison, the initial radius of the SHSC is only about 1.3 solar radaii (Larson 1969). “The [second hydrostatic] 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)

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

………………..

Galactic FFF:

If FFF extends to the galactic scale, then proto spiral galaxies may exhibit evidence of former symmetrical and/or asymmetrical FFF during their formation by top-down gravitational collapse, similar to that of stars, and unlike the dominant bottom-up model of Lambda-CDM.

Imagine globular clusters around the central bulge of spiral galaxies as having formed in sequential episodes of asymmetrical galactic FFF, where each globular cluster is a former core displaced in a manifold of sequential disk-instability flip-flop events.

Each additional displaced former core, in the form of a globular cluster, adds to the stability if the proto spiral galaxy until the spiral disk can attain a size where symmetrical galactic FFF can occur. The disk instability of symmetrical galactic FFF condenses a twin binary pair of disk instability objects, perhaps each containing a direct-collapse super massive black hole (SMBH) at its center. Then the greater overlying mass of the twin binary pair of disk instability objects flip-flops with the diminutive core to form the box/peanut central bulge of the Milky Way, with the box peanut shape revealing its formation by the merger of a twin binary pair of disk instability objects. And then imagine the Large Magellanic Cloud around the Milky Way and Triangulum around Andromeda Galaxy as the displaced diminutive cores of the symmetrical galactic FFF event.
………………..

Solar system evolution:

A massive accretion disk around a small red-dwarf-sized core underwent symmetrical FFF,
condensing a twin pair of disk-instability objects, binary-Sun, that flip-flopped with the much-smaller red-dwarf-sized core. During and following the symmetrical FFF, the core underwent 4 generations of trifurcation, forming 4 twin binary pairs, plus the residual core, Mercury, in addition to the twin binary pair of disk-instability objects which became binary-Sun. The four generations of twin binary pairs were:
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. Mutual perturbations caused 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’. Asymmetrical supernova explosions are known to create run away stars, and an asymmetrical binary spiral-in merger explosion of our former binary-Companion 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) into the inner solar system, most notably during the late heavy bombardment (LHB), from about 4000–3800 Ma, by means of aphelia precession. Tidal effects of KBOs caused the binary brown dwarf components of binary-Companion to spiral in, with much of the potential energy transferred to the Sun-Companion system, causing the Sun-Companion orbits around their common center of gravity, the ‘solar system barycenter’ (SSB), to became progressively more eccentric over time. As the Sun-Companion orbit became increasingly eccentric over time, the tidal threshold, associated with the SSB, spiraled out into the classical Kuiper belt, perturbing KBOs by causing aphelia precession. The major axes of KBO orbits aligned themselves 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 flip-flop, with the period of the flip-flop corresponding to 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 debris disk (4,567 Ma):
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 similarly condensed Kuiper belt objects (KBOs) against Neptune’s strongest outer resonances. Polar jets from the merging cores condensed calcium-aluminum-rich inclusions (CAIs) with a canonical r-process aluminum-26 concentration. The primary debris disk apparently lasted several million years, with early condensing asteroids undergoing internal melting due to the radioactive decay of short-lived radio nuclides. Chondrites condensed several million years later, after 26Al and 60Fe had largely decayed down to background levels. The newly-merged Sun may have undergone several million years as a flare star, with intermittent solar outbursts melting dust motes into chondrules, commonly found in chondrites.

Secondary debris disk (542 Ma):
The presumed binary brown-dwarf components of binary-Companion 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 by the tidal threshold between the Sun and former binary-Companion.) Flip-flop perturbation apparently also either dissociated binary KBOs, or caused their binary components to spiral in and and merge.

Mars:
Mars stands apart as the only likely hybrid accretion planet in our solar system. 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 like our solar system, both systems may contain a hybrid accretion planet, namely, Mars here and Alpha Centauri Bc (unconfirmed) there.

The Pluto system:
The Pluto system presumably formed in situ by streaming instability against Neptune’s strongest outer 2:3 resonance, likely from the secondary debris disk, with their young age explaining the geologically active surface of Pluto. The Pluto system presumably formed by symmetrical FFF, followed by 3 generations of trifurcation, similar to our solar system which is suggested to have formed by asymmetrical FFF followed by 4 generations of trifurcation. The first-generation trifurcation of the core created a twin binary pair (binary-Charon) + 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) + 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) + a residual core which hasn’t been discovered because it’s too dim to be seen by the Hubble Wide Field Camera that found Styx & Kerberos. (For all we know the Pluto system may have a still-smaller fourth-generation of trifurcation satellites.) The Pluto system appears to be a microcosm of our solar system in another way as well, in which the two largest twin binary pairs, binary-Pluto and binary-Charon, apparently spiraled in and merged.

Cambrian Explosion:
A number of Phanerozoic events may be correlated with the suggested binary brown-dwarf merger explosion and the loss of the solar system barycenter, 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-floating 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, including the 8 planets, to fall into slightly-lower shorter-period orbits. If Venus had formerly 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 causing the retrograde rotation. Venus also apparently underwent a global volcanic resurfacing event, some 300–500 million years ago. A corresponding upheaval on Earth caused by the decrease in orbital period is suggested to be the cause of the global erosion event known as the ‘Great Unconformity’, which occurred around the same time as the Cambrian Explosion.
………………..

‘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 their 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 [gravitational instability].” “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 classical population with similar-size and similar-color binary components in unperturbed low-inclination low-eccentricity orbits points to a young age for the cold classical KBO population, which are too young to have experienced orbital perturbation during the late heavy bombardment. Additionally, the geologically active surfaces of Pluto and its moon Charon, in (nontidal) synchronous orbits around their common barycenter, also appears to be telegraphing a young age.

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

The hot classical KBOs are suggested to have condensed in situ from the 4,567 Ma ‘primary debris disk’, but had their binary pairs disrupted and had their heliocentric orbits disrupted into high-inclination, high-eccentricity orbits by 4 billion years of flip-flop perturbation (apsidal precession) by the former Sun-Companion tidal threshold.

Old, hot classical KBOs:
– High inclination
– High eccentricity
– Bluish coloration
– Typically solitary 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 the loss of the Companion at 542 Ma.
………………..

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

– Twin binary pairs of solar system planets:
Suggested asymmetrical FFF followed by multigenerational trifurcation ideology suggests an explanation for the three sets of twin planets in our solar system (Jupiter-Saturn, Uranus-Neptune and Venus-Earth + solitary Mercury) and their relative mass and density progression.

– 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:
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 enrichments, namely 16O, 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 and perhaps the most recent volcanic resurfacing on Venus.

– 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 symmetrical FFF is suggested to be caused by a hiatus in symmetrical FFF during the first hydrostatic core (FHSC) phase of prestellar systems when the core is suggested to puff up to form a viscous connection with the accretion disk. A puffed up FHSC phase damps down the runaway positive feedback necessary to induce disk instability FFF. Symmetrical FFF during the young prestellar phase, with small accretion disks, spins off prestellar cores into low hot (final) orbits, forming hot Jupiters, whereas symmetrical FFF during the older protostellar phase, with larger accretion disks, spins off protostellar cores into high cold (final) orbits, forming cold Jupiters, with a circa 1000 year hiatus in symmetrical FFF during the FHSC phase that creates the physical gap between the bimodal hot and cold populations.

– 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 around 542 Ma, is suggested to result from the disbursal of brown-dwarf lifeforms, likely from a water-vapor cloud layer (similar to Jupiter’s) in the upper cloud decks of a room-temperature spectral-class-Y brown dwarf or super-Jupiter binary component of a 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 extends to the spiral galaxy scale, then these alternative mechanisms offer an explanation for:
– – Globular clusters as manifold sequential asymmetrical galactic FFF events in proto spiral galaxies
– – Large Magellanic Cloud around the Milky Way and Triangulum around Andromeda Galaxy as former asymmetrical galactic 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 symmetrical galactic FFF, which may have spun off the Large Magellanic Cloud as their former diminutive core ………………..

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

One Response to GALAXIES, STARS, PLANETS, MOONS, MINOR PLANETS AND COMETS

  1. Pingback: Snowball Solar System | Snowball Solar System

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