First Revision
the ap theory head text
T
HE
WELCOME to

Dear Colleague; The Accretion theory and all its misconceived variations positing, gas and dust gravitationally attracted and became our solar system, are having serious difficulties proving their basic concepts and are flagrantly violating the laws of physics trying to explain the improvable. Accretion is a failed and rehashed theory of The Cartesian Hypothesis which was conceived by Reno Descartes (1644) and was successively mimicked by Swedenborg, Kant, La Place, Chamberlain and Moulton, Carl von Weizsacker, Whipple, Kuiper, Safronoff, the Astronomy elite and by the Astronomy Establishment. The "new" rewrite of the same old theory was titled "The Accretion Theory" and was finally accepted by the IAU for unknown reasons. The same unanswerable questions and improvable scenarios remain as they have for the past 350 years. The absence of proof or logical answers implies a more fundamental theory exists, namely fission. The fission hypothisis was first introduced by George Gamow then Alpher, Herman, Sir Oliver Lodge, Sir James Jeans, Fred Hoyle, Hermann Bondi, Thomas Gold and Hannes Alfven. They all believed the Universe/Solar system started from an explosion. The “AP” Theory logically explains how bare nuclei collided and produced energy from a Fission process. The collision was caused from extreme heat coupled with a tremendous internal atomic explosion. This caused the unstable atoms to (split) separate from solid to liquid and then into their sub atomic form. The final result of the molten “splash” from Fission was atomic energy which culminated with the compounding (fusion) of unstable  sub-atomic molocules in a frozen envirorenment to cause the formation of water and our solar system from material produced and provided by our Sun.
  
Here are some of the unanswered Accretion questions:
1. The laws of Physics clearly state gas is molecularly structured to expand
indefinitely, how can gas be attracted by gravity or condense into solid particles?
2. Why weren’t the "rotating discs" thrown out into
space instead of accreting?
3. How could Venus's and the moon's surfaces have been formed all at the same time 4.5 billion years ago?
4. Why do Venus, Uranus and one third of the moons, spin in a direction opposite to the others? 
5. What useful information is available
on the specific solid state processes at work in the accretion phase?
6. How was the planetary matter separated from the solar gases?
7. How did the collapsing cloud cross the thermal, angular and momentum barriers?
8. What were the mechanics of condensation and accretion?
9. Where did our water and atmosphere come from?
10. Where did the gravity originate in the first place, to start the accretion process?
11. Objects move very slowly as they get further from the Sun, the Kuiper Belt and beyond would take longer than 4.5 billion years to accrete, how is that explained?
12. Why couldn’t Uranus and Neptune or beyond, be formed by using the latest computer simulations for accretion? These questions and many other Quantum Gravity and Accretion issues have never successfully been proven or addressed.   
Sincerly, Angelo Pettolino

A letter to my colleagues

 
GO TO TOP
Print