Comment of the Day: "Evolution Is Not Over" --New Insights Into the Genetic Code
Image of the Day: A Cosmic Waterfall

Origin of Jupiter and Saturn --New Theories on Formation of Gas Giants



                   Eso1301b_jpg_1319496g (1)


New theoretical modeling by Carnegie's Alan Boss provides clues to how the gas giant planets in our solar system—Jupiter and Saturn—might have formed and evolved. New stars are surrounded by rotating gas disks during the early stages of their lives. Gas giant planets are thought to form in the presence of these disks.

There are competing theories for how gas giant planets form around proto-suns. One proposes that the planets formed from slowly growing ice and rock cores, followed by rapid accretion of gas from the surrounding disk. The other theory proposes that clumps of dense gas form in spiral arms, increasing in mass and density, forming a gas giant planet in a single step.

Observations of young stars that still have these gas disks demonstrate that sun-like stars undergo periodic outbursts, lasting about 100 years, which transfer mass from the disk onto the young star, increasing its luminosity. It is thought that these short bursts of mass accretion are driven by marginal gravitational instability in the gas disk.

"Gas giant planets, once formed, can be hard to destroy," said Boss, "even during the energetic outbursts that young stars experience."

Boss developed highly detailed, three dimensional models demonstrating that regardless of how gas giant planets form, they should have been able to survive periodic outbursts of mass transfer from the gas disk onto the young star.

One model similar to our own Solar System was stable for more than 1,000 years, while another model containing planets similar to our Jupiter and Saturn was stable for more than 3,800 years. The models showed that these planets were able to avoid being forced to migrate inward to be swallowed by the growing proto-sun, or being tossed completely out of the planetary system by close encounters with each other.

Given that searches for extrasolar gas giant planets have found them to be present around about 20% of sun-like stars, this is a reassuring outcome. It suggests that our improved theoretical understanding of the formation and orbital evolution of gas giants is on the right track.

This research was supported in part by the NASA Origins of Solar Systems Program and contributed to in part to the NASA Astrobiology Institute. The calculations were performed on the Carnegie Alpha Cluster, the purchase of which was partially supported by a NSF Major Research Instrumentation grant.

The study was published recently by the Astrophysical Journal.

The Daily Galaxy via Carnegie Institution for Science

The image at the top of the page is an ALMA observation of the disc and gas streams around HD 142527. Credit: ALMA (ESO/NAOJ/NRAO), S. Casassus et al.




Our Solar System is obviously an integrated and orbiting part of the overall formation in our galaxy and it should naturally be analyzed in this specific context and not via the usual assumption of “a local cloud of gas and matter that suddenly collapsed via gravity”.

The approximately age of our Solar System of 4.6 billion years indicates a simultaneous formation of our sun and its orbiting planets and their moons in the galaxy. A much more dynamical explanation is needed in order to understand the Solar System formation.

- If looking at the position of our Solar System in the Milky Way galaxy and if analyzing the formation in this, one can clearly see that the actual formation imagery goes from within the galactic centre and outwards via the bars and further out in the arms of the galaxy in a 90 degree abrupt turn, which is totally impossible if the motion should origin from an attractive source in the Milky Way centre. (Which of course correctly is contradicted by the galactic rotation anomaly)

Conclusion: The Solar System was obviously once simultaneous formatted in the very galactic centre and very early got its compositions and shapes as well as its rotations and orbital planes from the swirling Milky Way rotation and electromagnetic circuit of formation.

This fact also has influences on how the basical elements are formatted and a this is a much logical explanation since the very strong Z-Pinch effect and magnetic force in the galactic centre works on the strong nuclear scale of formation, sorting out and squeezing gas and matter together in larger spheres which become stars, planet and moons and so on, which is fairly gently slung out from the galactic centre.

Ivar Nielsen
Natural Philosopher


You wrote: “Mr. Nielsen, have you published in any scientific journals that I might be able to look up?”.

AD: Thanks for asking. As you can conclude from the contents in my comment, I have some alternative cosmological points of views which sadly enough prevent me from posting articles on the traditional scientific journals because of their somewhat rigid peer review system.

My analytical approach to cosmology really origin from my understanding of the ancient empirical physical and spiritual knowledge as told in many cultural Stories of Creation which deals with a cyclical formation in the Universe in contrast to the modern and “linear timeline” ideas.

By studying the many cultural Stories of Creation and compare these to the ideas of modern cosmology and astronomy, one really can conclude that they contains real cosmological knowledge, right from the point where basical elements and qualities lies dormant, i.e. are in the primeval state, and when they start to interact and begin the physical formation.

This telling from many cultural Stories of Creation all deals with a state before the physical and circuital creation and they also all deals with the primeval state before and under the beginning of the creation of our galaxy.

When applying and comparing this cyclical understanding from the Stories of Creation to the modern hypothesis of creation, one really can explain many of the anomalies that keep on surprising the modern scientist.

Of course such a comparison can only be taken if and when one interpret the myths of creation as real cosmological explanations and knowledge, and you can read of Mytho-Cosmological descriptions of primary symbols of creation here on my personal website -

Furthermore I have 2 paper-links on

“New Solar and Galaxy Formation Knowledge” -

“The Milky Way Mythology and the Stories of Creation” -

Lastly I have 2 topics on Forum:

“Stories of Creation - The Primeval TOE” -


You can join the Forum and participate in several alternative cosmological discussions – maybe we meet again there?

Cheers Ivar

I may not agree with your conclusions, Ivar, but at least you are getting your readers to actually THINK rather than just accept the rubbish pushed as irrefutable FACT by the scientific establishment and their lackeys.


i would agree withe the ice core theory

hello i agree with you fake


Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)