Interpretation of the Helix Planetary Nebula using Hydro-Gravitational-Dynamics Planets and

astro-ph/0701474v4Nov 2

Interpretation of the Helix Planetary Nebula using

Hydro-Gravitational-Dynamics:Planets and Dark Energy

Carl H.Gibson 1

Departments of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering and Scripps Institution of Oceanography,University of California,San Diego,CA 92093-0411cgibson@6c1755d728ea81c758f57893 and Rudolph E.Schild Center for Astrophysics,60Garden Street,Cambridge,MA 02138rschild@6c1755d728ea81c758f57893 ABSTRACT Hubble Space Telescope (HST/ACS)images of the Helix Planetary Neb-ula (NGC 7293)are interpreted using the hydro-gravitational-dynamics theory (HGD)of Gibson 1996-2006.HGD claims that baryonic-dark-matter (BDM)dominates the halo masses of galaxies (Schild 1996)as Jovian (Primordial-fog-particle [PFP])Planets (JPPs)in proto-globular-star-cluster (PGC)clumps for all galaxy halo diameters bounded by stars.From HGD,supernova Ia (SNe Ia)

events always occur in planetary nebulae (PNe)within PGCs.The dying central star of a PNe slowly accretes JPP mass to grow the white-dwarf to 1.44M insta-bility from ≥1000M BDM within luminous PNe diameters.Plasma jets,winds and radiation driven by contraction and spin-up of the carbon star evaporate JPPs revealing its Oort accretional cavity.SNe Ia events may thus be obscured or not obscured by radiation-in?ated JPP atmospheres producing systematic SNe Ia distance errors,so the otherwise mysterious “dark energy”concept is unnec-essary.HST/ACS and WFPC2Helix images show >7,000cometary globules and SST/IRAC images show >20,000?40,000,here interpreted as gas-dust 1Center for Astrophysics and Space Sciences,UCSD a r X i v :a s t r o -p h /0701474v 4 2 N o v 2007

–2–

cocoons of JPPs evaporated by the spin powered radiation of the PNe central

white-dwarf.Observed JPP masses≈3×1025kg with spacing≈1014m for

galaxy star forming regions give a densityρthat fossilizes the primordial density

ρ0≈3×10?17kg m?3existing for times1012≤t≤1013s when the plasma

universe fragmented into proto-superclusters,proto-clusters,and proto-galaxies.

Pulsar scintillation spectra support the postulated multi-planet atmospheres.

Subject headings:ISM:structure–Planetary Nebula:general–Cosmology:

theory–Galaxy:halo,dark matter,turbulence

1.Introduction

Brightness values of Supernovae Ia(SNe Ia)events,taken as standard candles for red-shift values0.01

When a massive primordial-planet(exoplanet,rogue-planet,planemo,Jovian)popula-tion comprised of plasma-fossil-density(ρ0frozen H-He)PGC clumps of JPPs is recognized as the baryonic dark matter(BDM)and the interstellar medium(ISM),new scenarios are required for planetary nebulae(PNe)formation and for star formation,star evolution,and star death.From HGD the average galaxy BDM-ISM mass is≈30×the luminous mass of stars and the more di?usive NBDM-ISM(CDM)mass.The million trillion-planet-PGCs

–3–

per galaxy each have fossil-densityρ0≈ρP GC≈104greater than the ρg ≈10?21kg m?3 galaxy average and≈109 ρU ,where ρU ≈10?26kg m?3is the?at universe average density at the present time.All stars and all JPP planets are thus born and grown within such106M PGCs by mergers and accretions of PFP and JPP planets from the large PGC supply.By gravity the planets collect and recycle the dust and water of exploded stars to explain solar terrestrial planets and life.Application of?uid mechanics to the big bang, in?ation,and the plasma-and gas-self-gravitational structure formation epochs(Table1)is termed hydo-gravitational-dynamics(HGD)theory(Gibson1996,2000,2001,2004,2005). Viscosity,density and expansion-rate?x plasma gravitational fragmentation scales with a linear-spiral weak-turbulence protogalaxy geometry(Gibson2006a;Nomura&Post1998). Voids between the1046?1043kgρ0supercluster-to-protogalaxy fragments?rst?ll in the plasma epoch and later empty in the gas epoch by di?usion of a more massive neutrino-like population(?NB+?B=1,?Λ=0;?= ρ / ρU ).Instead of concordance cosmology values(?NB=0.27,?B=0.024,?Λ=0.73)commonly used(Wise&Abel2007),HGD gives(?NB=0.968,?B=0.032,?Λ=0).Supercluster voids with radio-telescope-detected scales≥1025m at redshift z≤1(Rudnick et al.2007)con?rm this prediction of HGD,but decisively contradictΛCDMHC where superclustervoids form last rather than?rst.

Many adjustments to standard cosmological,astrophysical,and astronomical models are required by HGD(Gibson2006a,Gibson2006b)and many puzzling questions are answered. For example,why are most stars binaries and why are population masses of small stars larger than population masses of larger stars(m SS≥m LS)?From HGD it is because all stars form and grow by a frictional-clumping binary-cascade from small PFP planets.Where do planetary nebulae and supernova remnants get their masses?From HGD these masses are mostly evaporated ambient BDM planets,just as the masses for many stars assumed larger than2M can be attributed mostly to the brightness of the huge(≥1013m)dark-matter-planet atmospheres they evaporate(§3Fig.3).Masses of supergiant OB and Wolf-Rayet stars are vastly overestimated neglecting evaporated JPP brightness(Maund et al.2004; Shigeyama&Nomoto1990).Because stars form from planets the?rst stars must be small and 6c1755d728ea81c758f57893rge≥2M population III stars forming directly from106M Jeans mass gas clouds in CDM halos never happened and neither did re-ionization of the gas-epoch back to a second plasma-epoch.CDM halos never happened.There were no dark ages because the ?rst stars formed immediately from merging PFP planet-mass clouds before the luminous hot gas cooled(at≈1013s).All big stars were once little stars.All little stars were once planets.The mystery of massive low surface brightness galaxies(O’Neil et al.2007) is solved.From HGD these are protogalaxies where,despite maximum tidal agitation,the central PGCs have remained in their original starless BDM state.All proto-galaxies were created simultaneously without stars at the end of the plasma epoch(at≈3×105y).

–4–

Jovian rogue planets dominating inner halo galaxy mass densities(Gibson1996)matches an identical,but completely independent,interpretation o?ered from Q0957+561A,B quasar microlensing observations(Schild1996).Repeated,continuous,redundant observations of the Q0957lensed quasar for>20years by several observers and telescopes con?rm that the mass of galaxies within all radii containing the stars must be dominated by planets (Colley&Schild2003;Schild2004a;Schild2004b;Gibson2006a;Gibson2006b).The non-baryonic dark matter(NBDM)is probably a mix of neutrino?avors,mostly primordial and sterile(weakly collisional)with mass m NBDM≈30m BDM.NBDM is super-di?usive and presently forms large outer galaxy halos and galaxy cluster halos.From HGD,the function of NBDM is to continue the decelerating expansion of the universe toward zero velocity(or slightly less)by large scale gravitational forces.A matter dominatedΛ=0?at expanding universe monotonically decelerates from general relativity theory.The entropy produced by its big bang turbulent beginning(Gibson2005)implies a closed contracting fate for the universe,not an open accelerating expansion driven by dark energy(Busa et al.2007).

According to HGD,SNe Ia explosions always occur in PNes within PGC massive dense clumps of frozen primordial planets where virtually all stars form and die.Planetary neb-ulae are not just brief pu?s of illuminated gas and dust ejected from dying stars in a vacuum,but are manifestations of≈3×107primordial dark matter planets per star in galaxies of3%bright and97%dark PGCs.When the JPP supply-rate of H-He gas is too small,stars die and cool as small helium or carbon white dwarfs.With modest in-ternal strati?ed turbulent mixing rates from larger JPP rates,gravity compresses the car-bon core,the angular momentum,and the magnetic?eld giving strong axial plasma jets and equatorial strati?ed turbulent plasma winds(Gibson et al.2007).Nearby JPP plan-ets heated by the star and illuminated by the jets and winds evaporate and become visi-ble as a PNe with a white-dwarf central star.PNes thus appear out of the dark whenever white-dwarf(WD)carbon stars are gradually growing to the Chandrasekhar limit of1.44M (Hamann et al.2003;Pena et al.2004;Hachisu&Kato2001).Gradual star growth is dan-gerous to the star because its carbon core may collapse from inadequate radial mass mixing, giving a SNe Ia event.Modest star growth may be even more dangerous because enhanced turbulence may mix and burn the carbon core but not mix the resulting incombustible iron core,which explodes at1.4M to form a neutron star in a supernova II event.Rapid stably strati?ed turbulent mixing within a star forced by a strong JPP rain may mix away both carbon core and iron core instabilities to form 2M superstars(Keto&Wood2006).

Thus when JPPs in a PGC are agitated to high speed V JP P,the rapid growth of its stars will inhibit formation of collapsing carbon cores so that fewer carbon white dwarfs and fewer SNe Ia result.More stars with M F e[Crit]≈1.4M <1.44M will centrally mix and explode as supernova II(SNe II)due to iron core collapse to form neutron stars

–5–

manifested as1.4M pulsars(Thorsett&Chakrabarty1999).Supernova II remnants such as the Crab are mostly evaporated or evaporating JPPs.The speed V JP P of planets and planet clumps within a PGC,their spin,and the size and composition of their gas-dust atmospheres are critical parameters to the formation of larger planets,stars,and PNe,and will be the subject of future studies(see Fig.2below).These parameters are analogous to the small protein chemicals used for bacterial quorum sensing in symbiotic gene expressions (Loh&Stacey2003)by providing a form of PGC corporate memory.Numerous dense,cold, water-maser and molecular-gas-clumps detected by radio telescopes in red giants and PNe (Miranda et al.2001;Tafoya et al.2007)are massive(≥M Jup)JPPs and should be studied as such to reveal important JPP parameters such as V JP P.

A gentle rain of JPP comets permits the possibility that a WD may grow its compressing carbon core to de?agration-detonation at the Chandrasekhar limit(Ropke&Niemeyer2007). As the core mass and density grow,the angular momentum increases along with the strength of plasma beams and winds,giving strong increases in the WD surface temperature,photon radiation,and observable PNe mass M P Ne.Strong JPP rains lead to Wolf-Rayet(C,N and O class)stars cloaked in massive envelopes of evaporating JPPs misinterpreted as super-wind ejecta.With larger accretion rates,radially beamed internal wave mixing driven by buoyancy damped turbulence(Keeler et al.2005;Gibson et al.2006a;Gibson et al.2006b) prevents both SNe II detonation at1.4M and SNe Ia detonation at1.44M .Turbulence and internal waves cascade from small scales to large,mix and di?use.With strong forcing, turbulent combustion can be quenched(Peters2000).With moderate JPP accretion rates, white-dwarfs can gradually burn gas to precisely enough carbon to collapse,spin up,and explode within the PNes they produce.

It is known(Padoan et al.2005)that Pre-Main-Sequence(PMS)star formation is not understood.Numerical simulations from gas clouds and the Bondi-Hoyle-Littleton model of wake gas accretion show the larger the star the larger the gas accretion rate.By conven-tional models of stars collapsing from clouds of molecular gas without planets there should be more large(supersolar)stars than small(brown dwarf BD,red dwarf RD)stars,con-trary to observations(Calchi-Novati et al.2005;Alcock et al.2000;Gahm et al.2007)that globulette-star-population-mass m GS decreases as globulette-star-mass M GS increases;that is,m G≥m BD≥m RD≥m .Such a monotonic decrease in m GS with M GS giving m P F P≥m JP P≥m BD≥m RD is expected from HGD where all stars and planets form by hierarchical accretion from10?3M Jup PFP dark matter planets within3×1015m Oort cavities in the ISM. Because m=NM,the decrease in m GS with M GS is also supported by observations of exo-planet numbers N showing dN/dM～M?1.2for M=(0.04?15)M Jup(Butler et al.2006), contrary to conventional planet formation models(Ida&Lin2004;Boss2001)where stars form mostly giant≥M Jup planets within≤1012m(10AU)of the protostar.

–6–

Aging WR-stars,neutron stars,pulsars,and C-stars are most frequently identi?ed in spiral-galaxy-disks(SGD)where tidal agitation is maximum for the≈1018planets of galaxy BDM halos.From HGD,SGDs re?ect PGC accretion from the halo.As the initially gaseous PGCs of protogalaxies freeze they become less sticky and collisional,so they di?use out of their protogalaxy cores(with Nomura scale L N≈1020m≈2kpc)in growing orbits to form the present≥30L N baryonic dark matter halos(Gibson2006a).Some tidally agitated PGCs become luminous as they are captured and accreted back toward the original core region,forming SGD accretion disks.Dark or nearly dark PGCs leave thin great circle metal-free star wakes about the Galaxy center to(2?3)L N radii,triggered and stretched away by tidal forces(Grillmair2006;Belokurov et al.2006;Odenkirchen et al.2001),where the mass in these ancient star“streams”typically exceeds that of their sources(eg.:the “Orphan Stream”).Dwarf galaxy clumps of PGCs in orbits out to7L N leave streams of stars and globular clusters(Ibata et al.2002)and high-velocity-clouds of gas(HVCs)at the15L N distance of the Magellanic cloud stream(Ibata&Lewis2007).Observations and HGD contradict suggestions of a non-baryonic dark matter origin or a capture origin for these recently discovered Galactic objects.Thousands of PGCs and their wakes covering≈20%of the sky may be identi?ed with anomalous velocity HVC objects and≈200isolated compact CHVCs covering≈1%from their neutral hydrogen signatures,masses104?5M ,distances up to6×1021m(60L N),and sizes≈1017?18m(Putnam et al.2002).Stars should form slowly enough to make white dwarfs with intermittently dimmed SNe Ia events in such gently agitated PGCs with small V JP P values.Pulsars,however,always twinkle because lines of sight always intersect fossil electron density turbulence(Gibson et al.2007)atmospheres of planets powerfully evaporated by the SN II event and the pulsar(see Fig.12§4,§5).

From HGD,SNe Ia events will be intermittently dimmed by Oort-rim-distant JPP-atmospheres evaporated by the increasing radiation prior to the event that has ionized and accreted all JPPs in the Oort cloud cavity.Evidence of a massive(several M )H-rich circumstellar medium at distances of up to nearly a light year(1016m)after the brightness maximum is indicated by slow fading SNe Ia events(Woods-Vasey et al.2004).Our scenario of SNe Ia formation by gradual carbon WD growth of≤M size stars fed by JPP comets contradicts the standard model for SNe Ia events(see§2.3.1)where superwinds dump most of the mass of(3?9)M intermediate size stars into the ISM.Few SNe Ia events are seen at large redshifts because billions of years are needed to grow a1.44M star.In§2.3.1we question PNe models involving intermediate size stars,their envelopes,and their superwinds. Stars formed by a gassy merging planet clump binary cascade is supported by observations in star forming regions of(1026?1029kg)spherical globulette objects with mass distributions dominated by the small mass globulettes(Gahm et al.2007).

Theories describing the death of small to intermediate mass stars(0.5M ?9M )to form

–7–

white-dwarfs and planetary nebulae are notoriously unsatisfactory(Iben1984).Neglecting the ambient JPPs of HGD,observations of PNe mass and composition indicate that most of the matter for such stars is inexplicably expelled(Knapp et al.1982)when they form dense carbon cores and die.Models of PNe formation have long been admittedly speculative, empirical,and without meaningful theoretical guidance(Iben1984).Multiple dredge-up models re?ect complex unknown stellar mixing processes.A counter-intuitive1975“Reimer’s Wind”expression gives stellar mass loss rates˙M～LR/M inversely proportional to the mass M of the star dumping its mass,where L is its huge luminosity(up to106L )and R is its huge radius(up to102R ).Why inversely?“Superwinds”must be postulated(§2.3)to carry away unexpectedly massive stellar envelopes of surprising composition by forces unknown to ?uid mechanics and physics in unexpectedly dense fragments in standard numerical models of star evolution(Paxton2004).Massive≥2M main sequence stars with mass inferred from gravitational-cloud-collapse luminosity-models(Iben1965)rather than JPP brightness are highly questionable.Mass and species balances in star,PNe and supernova formation models without HGD are uniformly problematic(Shigeyama&Nomoto1990).

Radiation pressure,even with dust and pulsation enhancement,is inadequate to explain the AGB superwind(Woitke2006).Shock wave e?ects cannot explain the large densities of the Helix cometary knots(§3).All these surprises vanish when one recognizes that the interstellar medium consists of primordial H-He planets rather than a hard vacuum.From HGD,planetary nebulae contain≥1000M of unevaporated JPPs from observed PNe radii 3×1016m assuming the BDM density in star forming regions is3×10?17kg m?3.Less than1%of these JPPs must be evaporated and ionized to form the unexpectedly massive stellar envelopes in place rather than ejected as superwinds.Why is it credible that a star can dump94%of its mass into the ISM when it forms a carbon core?From HGD,the AGB-envelope-superwind concepts are failed working hypotheses like CDM,Λand dark energy.

By coincidence,the direction opposite to the peak Leonid meteoroid?ux in Novem-ber2002matched that of the closest planetary nebula(PNe)Helix(NGC7293),so that the Hubble Helix team of volunteers could devote a substantial fraction of the14hour Leonid stand-down period taking photographs with the full array of HST cameras,including the newly installed wide angle Advanced Camera for Surveys(ACS).A composite image was constructed with a4m telescope ground based image mosaic(O’Dell et al.2004)to show the complete system.Helix is only219(198-246)pc≈6.6×1018m from earth (Harris et al.2007)with one of the hottest and most massive known central white dwarf stars(120,000K,M W D≈M ),and is also the dimmest PNe(Gorny et al.1997).With either a close(dMe)X-ray companion(Guerrero et al.2001)or just a JPP accretion disk (Su et al.2007)it powerfully beams radiation and plasma into the interstellar medium(ISM) surroundings.Thus Helix provides an ideal laboratory to test our claims from theory and

–8–

observation(Gibson1996;Schild1996)that both the ISM of star forming regions of galaxies and the baryonic-dark-matter(BDM)of the universe are dominated by dense collections of volatile primordial frozen-gas planets.

In§3we compare HST/ACS Helix and other PNe observations with HGD and standard explanations of cometary globule and planetary nebula formation.Planetary nebulae from HGD are not just transient gas clouds emitted by dying stars,but baryonic dark matter brought out of cold storage.A new interpretation of Oort cloud comets and the Oort cloud itself appears naturally,along with evidence(Matese et al.1999)of Oort comet de?ection by an≈3×1027kg solar system≥Jupiter-mass JPP at the Oort cavity distance≈3×1015 m.The?rst direct detection of PFPs in Helix(O’Dell et al.2007)is discussed in§4and the detection of40,000infrared Helix JPP atmospheres(Hora et al.2006)in§5,consistent with pulsar evidence(§4,§5).

In the following§2we review hydro-gravitational-dynamics theory and some of the supporting evidence,and compare the PNe predictions of HGD with standard PNe models and the observations in§3.We discuss our“nonlinear grey dust”alternative to“dark energy”in§4and summarize results in§5.Finally,in§6,some conclusions are o?ered.

2.Theory

2.1.HGD structure formation

Standard CDMHC cosmologies are based on?awed concepts about turbulence,ill-posed, over-simpli?ed?uid mechanical equations,an inappropriate assumption that primordial as-trophysical?uids are collisionless,and the assumption of zero density to achieve a solution of the equations.This obsolete Jeans1902theory neglects non-acoustic density?uctuations, viscous forces,turbulence forces,particle collisions,di?erences between particles,and the e?ects of multiparticle mixture di?usion on gravitational structure formation,all of which can be crucially important in some circumstances where astrophysical structures form by self gravity.Jeans did linear perturbation stability analysis(neglecting turbulence)of Euler’s equations(neglecting viscous forces)for a completely uniform ideal gas with densityρonly a function of pressure(the barotropic assumption)to reduce the problem of self-gravitational instability to one of gravitational acoustics.Di?usivity e?ects were not considered.

To satisfy Poisson’s equation?2φ=4πGρfor the gravitational potentialφof a colli-sionless ideal gas,Jeans assumed the densityρwas zero in a maneuver appropriately known as the“Jeans swindle”.The only critical wave length for gravitational instability with all

–9–

these questionable assumptions is the Jeans acoustical length scale L J where

L J≡V S/(ρG)1/2 (p/ρ2G)1/2≡L JHS,(1) G is Newton’s gravitational constant and V S≈(p/ρ)1/2is the sound speed.

The Jeans hydrostatic length scale L JHS≡(p/ρ2G)1/2in Eq.1has been misinterpreted by Jeans1902and others as an indication that pressure can somehow prevent the formation of structures by gravity at length scales smaller than L J.Viscosity,turbulence and di?u-sivity can prevent small scale gravitational structure formation at Schwarz scales(Table1). Pressure cannot.In a hydrodynamic description,ratio h=p/ρis the stagnation speci?c en-thalpy for gravitational condensation and rarefaction streamlines.The appropriate reference enthalpy h0is zero from Bernoulli’s equation B=p/ρ+v2/2=constant from the?rst law of thermodynamics for adiabatic,isentropic,ideal gas?ows at the beginning of structure for-mation,where v=0is the?uid speed.In an expanding universe where v=rγthe positive rate of strainγis important at large radial values r and favors fragmentation.In the initial stages of gravitational instability,pressure is a slave to the velocity and is irrelevant because it drops out of the momentum equation.“Where the speed is greatest the pressure is least”with B constant quotes the usual statement of Bernoulli’s law.For supersonic real gases and plasmas at later stages the speci?c enthalpy term p/ρacquires a factor of≈5/2famously neglected by Newton in his studies of acoustics without the second law of thermodynamics (Pilyugin&Usov2007).Turbulence concepts of HGD are necessary(Gibson et al.2007).

Pressure support and thermal support are concepts relevant only to hydrostatics.For hydrodynamics,where the velocity is non-zero,pressure appears in the Navier-Stokes mo-mentum equation only in the?B≈0term.Non-acoustic density extrema are absolutely unstable to gravitational structure formation(Gibson1996;Gibson2000).Minima trigger voids and maxima trigger condensates at all scales not stabilized by turbulent forces,viscous forces,other forces,or di?usion(see Eqs.3-5and Table1below).The Jeans acoustic scale L J is the size for which pressure can equilibrate acoustically without temperature change in an ideal gas undergoing self gravitational collapse or void formation,smoothing away all pressure forces and all pressure resistance to self gravity.The Jeans hydrostatic scale L JHS is the size of a?uid blob for which irreversibilities such as frictional forces or thermonu-clear heating have achieved a hydrostatic equilibrium between pressure and gravitation in a proto-Jovian-planet or proto-star.L JHS is generically much smaller than L J and has no physical signi?cance until gravitational condensation has actually occurred and a hydrostatic equilibrium has been achieved.

When gas condenses on a non-acoustic density maximum due to self gravity a variety of results are possible.If the amount is much larger than the Eddington limit110M permitted by radiation pressure,a turbulent maelstrom,superstar,and possibly a black hole

–10–

(or magnetosphere eternally collapsing object MECO)may appear.If the amount is small, a gas planet can form in hydrostatic equilibrium as the gravitational potential energy is converted to heat by turbulent friction,and is radiated.The pressure force F P≈p×L2 matches the gravitational force of the planet at F G≈ρ2GL4at the hydrostatic Jeans scale L JHS.Pressure p is determined by a complex mass-momentum-energy balance of the?uid ?ow and ambient conditions.A gas with uniform density is absolutely unstable to self gravitational structure formation on non-acoustic density perturbations at scales larger and smaller than L J and is unstable to acoustical density?uctuations on scales larger than L J(Gibson1996).Pressure and temperature cannot prevent structure formation on scales larger or smaller than L J.Numerical simulations showing sub-Jeans scale instabilities are rejected as“arti?cial fragmentation”based on Jeans’misconceptions(Truelove et al.1997). The fragmentation is real,and the rejection is a serious mistake.

Density?uctuations in?uids are not barotropic as assumed by Jeans1902except rarely in small regions for short times near powerful sound sources.Density?uctuations that triggered the?rst gravitational structures in the primordial?uids of interest were likely non-acoustic(non-barotropic)density variations from turbulent mixing of temperature and chem-ical species concentrations re?ecting big bang turbulence patterns(Gibson2001,2004,2005) as shown by turbulence signatures(Bershadskii and Sreenivasan2002;Bershadskii2006)in the cosmic microwave background temperature anisotropies.From Jeans’theory without Jeans’swindle,a gravitational condensation on an acoustical density maximum rapidly be-comes a non-acoustical density maximum because the gravitationally accreted mass retains the(zero)momentum of the motionless ambient gas.The Jeans1902analysis was ill posed because it failed to include non-acoustic density variations as an initial condition.

Fluids with non-acoustic density?uctuations are continuously in a state of structure formation due to self gravity unless prevented by di?usion or?uid forces(Gibson1996). Turbulence or viscous forces can dominate gravitational forces at small distances from a point of maximum or minimum density to prevent gravitational structure formation,but gravitational forces will dominate turbulent or viscous forces at larger distances to cause structures if the gas or plasma does not di?use away faster than it can condense or rarify due to gravity.The concepts of pressure support and thermal support are artifacts of the erroneous Jeans criterion for gravitational instability.Pressure forces could not prevent gravitational structure formation in the plasma epoch because pressures equilibrate in time periods smaller that the gravitational free fall time(ρG)?1/2on length scales smaller than the Jeans scale L J,and L J in the primordial plasma was larger than the Hubble scale of causal connection L J>L H=ct,where c is light speed and t is time.Therefore,if gravitational forces exceed viscous and turbulence forces in the plasma epoch at Schwarz scales L ST and L SV smaller than L H(Table1)then gravitational structures will develop,independent of the

–11–

Jeans criterion.Only a very large di?usivity(D B)could interfere with structure formation in the plasma.Di?usion prevents gravitational clumping of the non-baryonic dark matter (cold or hot)in the plasma epoch because D NB D B and(L SD)NB L H.Di?usion does not prevent fragmentation of the baryonic material at30,000years when(L SD)B≤L H.

Consider the gravitational response of a large motionless body of uniform density gas to a sudden change at time t=0on scale L L J of a rigid mass perturbation M(t) at the center,either a cannonball or vacuum beach ball depending on whether M(0)is positive or negative(Gibson2000).Gravitational forces cause all the surrounding gas to accelerate slowly toward or away from the central mass perturbation.Integrating the radial gravitational acceleration dv r/dt=?GM/r2gives the radial velocity

v r=?GM(t)tr?2(2) so the central mass increases or decreases at a rate

dM(t)/dt=?v r4πr2ρ=4πρGM(t)t(3) substituting the expression for v r.Separating variables and integrating gives

M(t)=M(0)exp(±2πρGt2),t t G(4)

respectively,where nothing much happens for time periods less than the gravitational free fall time t G=(ρG)?1/2except for a gradual build up or depletion of the gas near the cen-ter.Note that the classic Bondi-Hoyle-Littleton accretion rate dM BH/dt≈4πρ[GM]2V?3

S (Krumholz et al.2006;Padoan et al.2005;Edgar2004)on point masses M in a gas of den-sityρis contradicted.The sound speed V S is irrelevant to point mass accretion rates for the same reasons V S is irrelevant to gravitational structure formation for times t t G.

For condensation,at t=0.43t G the mass ratio M(t)/M(0)for r

The di?usion velocity is D/L for di?usivity D at distance L(Gibson1968a;Gibson1968b) and the gravitational velocity is L(ρG)1/2.The two velocities are equal at the di?usive Schwarz length scale

L SD≡[D2/ρG]1/4.(5)

Weakly collisional particles such as the hypothetical cold-dark-matter(CDM)material can-not possibly form clumps,seeds,halos,or potential wells for baryonic matter collection

–12–

because the CDM particles have large di?usivity and will disperse,consistent with obser-vations (Sand et al.2002).Di?usivity D ≈V p ×L c ,where V p is the particle speed and L c is the collision distance.Because weakly collisional particles have large collision distances with large di?usive Schwarz lengths the non-baryonic dark matter (possibly neutrinos)is the last material to fragment by self gravity and not the ?rst as assumed by CDM cosmologies.The ?rst structures occur as proto-supercluster-voids in the baryonic plasma controlled by viscous and weak turbulence forces,independent of di?usivity (D ≈ν).The CDM seeds postulated as the basis of CDMHCC never happened because (L SD )NB ct in the plasma epoch.Because CDM seeds and halos never happened,hierarchical clustering of CDM halos to form galaxies and their clusters never happened (Gibson 1996,2000,2001,2004,2005,2006a,2006b).

Cold dark matter was invented to explain the observation that gravitational structure formed early in the universe that should not be there from the Jeans 1902criterion that for-bids structure in the baryonic plasma because (L J )B >L H during the plasma epoch (where sound speed approached light speed V S =c/√3).In this erroneous CDM cosmology,non-baryonic particles with rest mass su?cient to be non-relativistic at their time of decoupling are considered “cold”dark matter,and are assumed to form permanent,cohesive clumps in virial equilibrium that can only interact with matter and other CDM clumps gravitation-ally.This assumption that CDM clumps are cohesive is unnecessary,unrealistic,and ?uid mechanically untenable.Such clumps are unstable to tidal forces because they lack particle collisions necessary to produce cohesive forces to hold them together (Gibson 2006a).

Numerical simulations of large numbers of falsely cohesive CDM clumps show a ten-dency for the clumps to clump further due to gravity to form “dark matter halos”,falsely justifying the cold dark matter hierarchical clustering cosmology (CDMHCC).The cluster-ing “halos”grow to 106M by about z =20(Abel et al.2002)as the universe expands and cools and the pre-galactic clumps cluster.Gradually the baryonic matter (at 1016s)falls into the growing gravitational potential wells of the CDM halos,cools o?su?ciently to form the ?rst (very massive and very late at 300Myr)Population III stars whose powerful supernovas reionized all the gas of the universe (O’Shea &Norman 2006).However,obser-vations show this never happened (Aharonian et al.2006;Gibson 2006a).Pop-III photons are not detected,consistent with the HGD prediction that they never existed and that the ?rst stars formed at 1013s (0.3Myr)and were quite small except at the cores of PGCs at the cores of the protogalaxies.The missing hydrogen cited as (“Gunn-Peterson trough”)evidence for reionization is actually sequestered as PGC clumps of frozen JPP planets.As we have seen,CDMHCC is not necessary since the Jeans 1902criterion is incorrect.Baryons (plasma)begin gravitational structure formation during the plasma epoch when the horizon scale exceeds the largest Schwarz scale (Gibson 1996;Gibson 2000).

–13–

Clumps of collisionless or collisional CDM would either form black holes or thermal-ize in time periods of order the gravitational free fall time(ρG)?1/2because the particles would gravitate to the center of the clump by core collapse where the density would ex-ponentiate,causing double and triple gravitational interactions or particle collisions that would thermalize the velocity distribution and trigger di?usional evaporation.For colli-sional CDM,consider a spherical clump of perfectly cold CDM with mass M,densityρ, particle mass m and collision cross sectionσ.The clump collapses in time(ρG)?1/2to den-sityρc=(m/σ)3/2M?1/2where collisions begin and the velocity distribution thermalizes. Particles with velocities greater than the escape velocity v≈2MG/r then di?use away from the clump,where r=(M/ρ)1/3is the initial clump size.For typically considered CDM clumps of mass≈1036kg and CDM particles more massive than10?24kg(WIMPs with σ≈10?42m2small enough to escape detection)the density from the expression would re-quire a collision scale smaller than the clump Schwarzschild radius so that such CDM clumps would collapse to form black holes.Less massive motionless CDM particles collapse to dif-fusive densities smaller than the black hole density,have collisions,thermalize,and di?use away.From the outer halo radius size measured for galaxy cluster halos it is possible to estimate the non-baryonic dark matter particle mass to be of order10?35kg(10ev)and the di?usivity to be≈1030m2s?1(Gibson2000).Thus,CDM clumps are neither necessary nor physically possible,and are ruled out by observations(Sand et al.2002).It is recommended that the CDMHC scenario for structure formation and cosmology be abandoned.

The baryonic matter is subject to large viscous forces,especially in the hot primordial plasma and gas states existing when most gravitational structures?rst formed(Gibson2000). The viscous forces per unit volumeρνγL2dominate gravitational forcesρ2GL4at small scales,whereνis the kinematic viscosity andγis the rate of strain of the?uid.The forces match at the viscous Schwarz length

L SV≡(νγ/ρG)1/2,(6)

which is the smallest size for self gravitational condensation or void formation in such a?ow. Turbulent forces may permit larger mass gravitational structures to develop;for example, in thermonuclear maelstroms at galaxy cores to form central black holes.Turbulent forces ρε2/3L8/3match gravitational forcesρ2GL4at the turbulent Schwarz scale

L ST≡ε1/2/(ρG)3/4,(7)

whereεis the viscous dissipation rate of the turbulence.Because in the primordial plasma the viscosity and di?usivity are identical and the rate-of-strainγis larger than the free-fall frequency(ρG)1/2,the viscous and turbulent Schwarz scales L SV and L ST will be larger than the di?usive Schwarz scale L SD,from(3),(4)and(5).

–14–

The criterion for structure formation in the plasma epoch is that both L SV and L ST become less than the horizon scale L H=ct.Reynolds numbers in the plasma epoch were near critical,with L SV≈L ST.From L SV

(L SD)NB L SV≈L ST≈5×L K≈L H=3×1020m (L SD)B,(8)

where(L SD)NB refers to the non-baryonic component and L SV,L ST,L K,and(L SD)B scales refer to the baryonic(plasma)component.Acoustic peaks inferred from CMB spectra re?ect acoustic signatures of the?rst gravitational structure formation and the sizes of the voids (see§4Fig.9).These supercluster voids are cold spots on the CMB and completely empty at1025m scales from radio telescope measurements(Rudnick et al.2007).Because such scales require impossible clustering speeds,this strongly contradictsΛCDMHCC.

As proto-supercluster mass plasma fragments formed,the voids?lled with non-baryonic matter by di?usion,thus inhibiting further structure formation by decreasing the gravi-tational driving force.The baryonic mass densityρ≈3×10?17kg/m3and rate of strain γ≈10?12s?1were preserved as hydrodynamic fossils within the proto-supercluster fragments and within proto-cluster and proto-galaxy objects resulting from subsequent fragmentation as the photon viscosity and L SV decreased prior to the plasma-gas transition and photon decoupling(Gibson2000).As shown in Eq.6,the Kolmogorov scale L K≡[ν3/ε]1/4and the viscous and turbulent Schwarz scales at the time of?rst structure matched the horizon scale L H≡ct≈3×1020m,freezing in the density,strain-rate,and spin magnitudes and directions of the subsequent proto-cluster and proto-galaxy fragments of proto-superclusters. Remnants of the strain-rate and spin magnitudes and directions of the weak turbulence at the time of?rst structure formation are forms of fossil vorticity turbulence(Gibson1999).

The quiet condition of the primordial gas is revealed by measurements of temperature ?uctuations of the cosmic microwave background radiation that show an averageδT/T≈10?5too small for much turbulence to have existed at that time of plasma-gas transition (1013s).Turbulent plasma motions were strongly damped by buoyancy forces at horizon scales after the?rst gravitational fragmentation time1012s.Viscous forces in the plasma are inadequate to explain the lack of primordial turbulence(ν≥1030m2s?1is required but, after1012s,ν≤4×1026,Gibson2000).The observed lack of plasma turbulence proves that large scale buoyancy forces,and therefore self gravitational structure formation,must have begun in the plasma epoch≈1011?1013s.

–15–

The gas temperature,density,viscosity,and rate of strain are all precisely known at

ρis1024?25kg,the mass of a small planet transition,so the gas viscous Schwarz mass L3

SV

(Mars-Earth),or about10?6M ,with uncertainty a factor of ten.From HGD,soon after the cooling primordial plasma turned to gas at1013s(300,000yr),the entire baryonic universe condensed to a fog of hot planetary-mass primordial-fog-particle(PFPs)clouds,preventing collapse at the accoustic Jeans mass.In the cooling universe these gas-cloud objects cooled and shrank,formed H-He rain,and froze solid to become the BDM and the basic material of construction for stars and everything else,presently≈30×106rogue planets per star in trillion-planet Jeans-mass(1036kg)PGC clumps.

ρof the primordial gas at transition was about106M ,also with The Jeans mass L3

J

≈×10uncertainty,the mass of a globular-star-cluster(GC).Proto-galaxies fragmented at the PFP scale but also at this proto-globular-star-cluster PGC scale L J,although not for the reasons given by the Jeans1902theory.Density?uctuations in the gaseous proto-galaxies were absolutely unstable to void formation at all scales larger than the viscous Schwarz scale L SV.Pressure can only remain in equilibrium with density without temperature changes in a gravitationally expanding void on scales smaller than the Jeans scale.From the second law of thermodynamics,rarefaction wave speeds are limited to speeds less than the sonic velocity.Density minima expand due to gravity to form voids subsonically.Cooling could therefore occur and be compensated by radiation in the otherwise isothermal primordial gas when the expanding voids approached the Jeans scale.Gravitational fragmentations of proto-galaxies were then accelerated by radiative heat transfer to these cooler regions, resulting in fragmentation at the Jeans scale and isolation of proto-globular-star-clusters (PGCs)with the primordial-gas-Jeans-mass.

These PGC objects were not able to collapse from their own self gravity because of their internal fragmentation at the viscous Schwarz scale to form≈1024kg PFPs.The fact that globular star clusters have precisely the same density≈ρ0and primordial-gas-Jeans-mass from galaxy to galaxy proves they were all formed simultaneously soon after the time of the plasma to gas transition1013s.The gas has never been so uniform since,and no mechanism exists to recover such a high density,let alone such a high uniform density,as the fossil turbulent density valueρ0≈3×10?17kg/m3.Young globular cluster formation in BDM halos in the Tadpole,Mice,and Antennae galaxy mergers(Gibson&Schild2003a) show that dark PGC clusters of PFPs are remarkably stable structures,persisting without disruption or star formation for more than ten billion years.

–16–

2.2.Observational evidence for PGCs and PFPs

Searches for point mass objects as the dark matter by looking for microlensing of stars in the bulge and the Magellanic clouds produced a few reliable detections and many self-lenses,variable stars and background supernova events,leading to claims by the MA-CHO/OGLE/EROS consortia that this form of dark matter has been observationally ex-cluded(Alcock et al.1998).These studies have all assumed a uniform(“Gaussian”)density rather than the highly clumped(“log-Gaussian”)density(Gibson&Schild1999)with a non-linear frictional accretion cascade for the MAssive Compact Halo Objects(MACHOs) expected from HGD.Sparse sampling reduces detection sensitivity to small clumped plan-etary mass objects.Since PFPs within PGC clumps must accretionally cascade over a million-fold mass range to produce JPPs and stars their statistical distribution becomes an intermittent lognormal that will profoundly a?ect an appropriate sampling strategy and mi-crolensing data interpretation.This rules out the exclusion of PFP mass objects as the bary-onic dark matter(BDM)of the Galaxy by MACHO/OGLE/EROS(Gibson&Schild1999). OGLE campaigns focusing on large planetary mass(10?3M )to brown dwarf mass ob-jects have revealed121transiting and orbiting candidates,some with orbits less than one day(Udalski et al.2003).More recent observations toward M31give95%con?dence level claims that brown dwarf MACHOs comprise≈20%of the combined MW-M31dark matter halo(Calchi-Novati et al.2005).Estimates for the MW halo of≈0.2M lenses from LMC stars have increased to≈16%(Alcock et al.2000;Bennett2005).Both of these estimates increase by a large factors( 5)from HGD when JPP clumping into PGCs is taken into account since microlensing by a JPP planet requires a line of sight passing through a PGC and PGCs(as CHVCs)occupy a small fraction of the sky(≈1%)with HVC wakes(≈20%).

Evidence that planetary mass objects dominate the BDM in galaxies has been gradually accumulating and has been reviewed(Gibson&Schild2003b).Cometary knot candidates for PFPs and JPPs appear whenever hot events like white dwarfs,novas,plasma jets,Herbig-Haro objects,and supernovas happen,consistent with the prediction of HGD that the knots reveal Jovian planets that comprise the BDM,as we see for the planetary nebulae in the present paper.However,the most convincing evidence for our hypothesis,because it averages the dark matter over much larger volumes of space,is provided by one of the most technically challenging areas in astronomy;that is,quasar microlensing(Schild1996).Several years and many dedicated observers were required to con?rm the Schild1996measured time delay of the Q0957lensed quasar images so that the twinkling of the subtracted light curves could be con?rmed and the frequency of twinkling interpreted as evidence that the dominant point mass objects of the lensing galaxy were of small planetary mass.

By using multiple observatories around the Earth it has now been possible to accurately

–17–

establish the Q0957time delay at417.09±0.07days(Colley et al.2002,2003).With this unprecedented accuracy a statistically signi?cant microlensing event of only12hours has now been detected(Colley&Schild2003)indicating a7.4×1022kg(moon-mass)PFP.An additional microlensing system has been observed(Schechter et al.2003)and con?rmed, and its time delay measured(Ofek and Maoz2003).To attribute the microlensing to stars rather than planets required Schechter et al.2003to propose relativistic knots in the quasar. An additional four lensed quasar systems with measured time delays show monthly period microlensing.These studies support the prediction of HGD that the masses of their galaxy lenses are dominated by small planetary mass objects as the baryonic dark matter(Burud et al.2000,2002;Hjorth et al.2002)that may produce intermittent systematic dimming errors rather than dark energy(Schild&Dekker2006).

Flux anomalies in four-quasar-image gravitational lenses have been interpreted as evi-dence(Dalal and Kochanek2002)for the dark matter substructure predicted by CDM halo models,but the anomalies may also be taken as evidence for concentrations of baryonic dark matter such as PGCs,especially when the images are found to twinkle with frequencies consistent with the existence of planetary mass objects.Evidence that the small planetary objects causing high frequency quasar image twinkling are clumped as PGCs is indicated by the HE1104(Schechter et al.2003)damped Lyman alpha lensing system(DLA≡neutral hy-drogen column density larger than1024.3m?2),suggesting PGC candidates from the evidence of gas and planets.Active searches are underway for quasar lensing DLAs with planetary frequency twinkling that can add to this evidence of PGCs.Twenty105?106M (PGC-PFP) galaxy halo objects have been detected≥1021m from M31(Thilker et al.2004).

Perhaps the most irrefutable evidence for galaxy inner halos of baryonic PGC-PFP clumps is the HST/ACS image showing an aligned row of42?46YGCs(see§2.3.2and Fig.1)precisely tracking the frictionally merging galaxy fragments VVcdef in the Tadpole system(Gibson&Schild2003a).Concepts of collisionless?uid mechanics and collisionless tidal tails applied to merging galaxy systems are rendered obsolete by this image.Nu-merous YGCs are also seen in the fragmenting galaxy cluster Stephan’s Quintet-HGC92 (Gibson&Schild2003c).The mysterious red shifts of this dense Hickson Compact Galaxy Cluster(HGC)support the HGD model of sticky beginnings of the cluster in the plasma epoch,where viscous forces of the baryonic dark matter halo of the cluster have inhibited the ?nal breakup due to the expansion of the universe to about200million years ago and reduced the transverse velocities of the galaxies to small values so that they appear aligned in a thin pencil by perspective.Close alignments of QSOs with bright galaxies(suggesting intrinsic red shifts)have been noted for many years(Hoyle et al.2000),but are easily explained by the HGD concept that proto-galaxies formed in the plasma epoch by viscous-gravitational fragmentation of larger objects termed proto-galaxy-clusters(Gibson2000).

–18–

2.3.Planetary Nebula formation

2.3.1.The standard model

According to the standard model of white dwarf and planetary nebula formation,an ordinary star like the sun burns less than half of its hydrogen and helium to form a hot, dense,carbon core(Busso et al.1999;Iben1984).White dwarf masses are typically0.6M or less even though the initial star mass is estimated from the increased brightness at WD formation to be8M or more.Are intermediate stars really so massive?If so,how does all this mass escape?Radiation pressures are much too small for such massive ejections either as winds,plasma beams,or clumps,even assisted by dust and pulsations(Woitke2006). Most of the large mass inferred from the brightness probably just re?ects the bright JPP atmospheres as the massive frozen planets near the new white-hot dwarf evaporate and ion-ize,incleasing the JPP entrainment rate by friction.Claims of red-blue supergiant stripping (Maund et al.2004)are highly questionable.The brightness of the JPP atmospheres mas-querades as huge central stellar masses and envelopes.Friction from the gas and dust of evaporated JPPs accelerates the formation of the PNe and the growth of central carbon white dwarf(s)toward either a SNe Ia event or a bypass of the event by enhanced mixing of the carbon core giving critical mass1.4M iron-nickel cores and SNe II events.How much of the9?25M mass of SNe II remnants can be attributed to the precursor star?

Interpretation of nuclear chemistry from spectral results to describe the physical pro-cesses of stellar evolution to form white dwarfs(Herwig2005)is limited by a poor un-derstanding of modern strati?ed turbulent mixing physics.Methods that account for fos-sil and zombie turbulence radial internal wave transport in mixing chimneys are required (Keeler et al.2005;Gibson et al.2006a;Gibson et al.2006b;Gibson et al.2007)focusing on the smallest scales(Wang&Peters2006).New information about carbon stars is avail-able at the critical infrared spectral bands of cool AGB stars from the Spitzer Space T elescope(Lagadec et al.2006)but the mass loss problem remains unsolved.Crucial con-tributions of mass and luminosity from the ISM are not taken into account in the standard models of PNe formation and evolution and in standard models of star formation and evo-lution.

From standard star models,the neutral atmosphere of a dying red giant with approxi-mate densityρ≈10?17kg m?3(Chaisson&McMillan2001)is somehow expelled to the ISM along with a very massive(but unobserved and likely mythical)envelope by(unexplained) dynamical and photon pressures when the hot,T≈105K,dense,ρ≈1010kg m?3,carbon core is exposed as a white dwarf star with no source of fuel unless accompanied by a donor companion.The density of this1016kg atmosphere expanded to the distance of the inner

–19–

Helix radius is trivial(≈10?29kg m?3).At most this could bring the PNe ejected atmo-sphere density to a small fraction(≈10?15)ofρ≈10?14kg m?3values observed in the knots (Meaburn et al.1998).Why are small and intermediate mass main sequence stars(1?9M ) so ine?cient that they burn only a small fraction of their initial mass before they die to form (0.5?1.44M )white dwarfs?We suggest small stars are likely to be more e?cient than large stars in their burning of gravitationally collected mass.What they don’t burn is returned as helium and carbon white dwarfs,neutron stars(if the small star gets large)and SNe ashes, not superwinds.The ashes are collected gravitationally by the≥1000M of ambient PFPs and JPPs in?uenced by an average star in its evolution from birth to death,and a small fraction returned to the stars as the dust of comets.From HGD,most intermediate mass stars and superwinds are obsolete working hypotheses used to explain unexpected brightness of JPP atmospheres formed from the ISM and not ejected(Herwig2005).

From radio telescope measurements(Knapp et al.1982)large stars up to9M form white dwarfs and companions with huge envelopes that have complex histories with su-perwind Asymptotic Giant Branch(AGB)periods where most of the assumed initial mass of the star is mysteriously expelled into the ISM(Busso et al.1999).The possibility is not mentioned in the literature that the ISM itself could be supplying the unexpectedly large,luminous,envelope masses and superwind mass losses inferred from radio and infrared telescope measurements(Knapp et al.1982),OH/IR stars(de Jong1983),and star clus-ter models(Claver et al.2001).It has been speculated in versions of the standard model that shock wave instabilities somehow produce cometary knots ejected by PNe central stars (Vishniac1994;Vishniac1983),or that a fast wind impacts the photo-ionized inner surface of the dense ejected envelope giving Rayleigh-Taylor instabilities that somehow produce the cometary globules and radial wakes observed(Garcia-Segura et al.2006;Capriotti1973). Such models produce cometary globule densities much smaller than observed,and require globule wake densities much larger than observed.

Several other problems exist for standard PNe models without HGD.Huge(3?9M ) H-He masses observed in PNe are richer in other species and dust than one would expect to be expelled as stellar winds or cometary bullets during any e?cient solar mass star evolution, where most of the star’s H-He fuel should presumably be converted by thermonuclear fusion to carbon in the core before the star dies.More than a solar mass of gas and dust is found in the inner nebular ring of Helix,with a dusty H-He-O-N-CO composition matching that of the interstellar medium rather than winds from the hydrogen-depleted atmosphere of a carbon star,but up to11M may be inferred for the total PNe(Speck et al.2002).The cometary globules are too massive and too dense to match any Rayleigh-Taylor instability model.Such models(Garcia-Segura et al.2006)give cometary globule densities of onlyρ≈10?19kg m?3 compared toρ≈10?14kg m?3observed.

–20–

The closest AGB C star is IRC+10216(Mauron&Huggins1999).It is brighter than any star at long wavelengths,but invisible in the blue from strong dust absorption.Loss rates inferred from its brightness are large(2×10?5M /yr).The possibility that the mass indicated by the brightness could have been brought out of the dark in place has not been considered.Multiple,fragmented and asymmetric rings are observed,indicating a central binary.The rings are irregular and extend to4×1015m,with central brightness of the envelope con?ned to2×1014m.The observed ring structures appear to be wakes of Jovian orbital planets evaporating in response to the red giant growth and powerful radiation from the central star(s).Rather than superwinds outward we see the e?ects of enhanced JPP accretion inward,clearing the Oort cloud cavity prior to PNe formation.

The density increase due to maximum expected Mach6hypersonic shock waves in astrophysical gases is only about a factor of six,not105.Rayleigh-Taylor instability,where a low density?uid accelerates a high density?uid,causes little change in the densities of the two?uids.Turbulence dispersion of nonlinear thin shell instabilities(Vishniac1994; Vishniac1983)should decrease or prevent shock induced or gravitational increases in density. The masses of the inner Helix cometary globules are measured and modeled to be 1025kg, much larger than expected for PFP planets that have not merged with other PFPs to form globulette clumps and JPPs.No mechanism is known by which such massive dense objects can form or exist near the central star.Neither could they be ejected without disruption to the distances where they are observed.Measurements of proper motions of the cometary knots provide a de?nitive test of whether the knots are in the gas and expanding at the out?ow velocity away from the central binary,as expected in the standard model,or moving randomly with some collapse component toward the center.Proper motion measurements to date(O’Dell et al.2002)suggest they are mostly moving randomly with approximately virial PGC speeds(also see Fig.2below in§3).

2.3.2.The HGD model

According to HGD,all stars are formed by accretion of PFP planets,larger Jovian PFP planets(JPPs),and brown and red dwarf stars within a primordial PGC interstellar medium.The accretion mechanism is likely to be binary with clumping,where two JPPs experience a near collision so that internal tidal forces and frictional heating of their atmo-spheres produces evaporation of the frozen H-He planets and an increase in the amount of gas in their atmospheres.Smaller JPP and PFP planets within the atmospheres are col-lected as comets or merging moons.Increased size and density of planet atmospheres from collisions,tidal forces,or star radiation results in“frictional hardening”of binary planets

–21–

until they fragment,evaporate,merge and then shrink and refreeze by radiation.The binary accretion cascade to larger mass clumps of planet-binaries and star-binaries continues until inhibited by thermonuclear processes.Hence“3out of every2stars is a binary”(personal communication to RES from Cecilia Helena Payne-Gaposchkin,pioneer astronomer).This classic astronomical overstatement could actually be true if one of the“stars”is a binary and the other a binary of binaries or a triplet of two binaries and a rogue.Small binary stars with lots of moons and planets is the signature of star formation from 6c1755d728ea81c758f57893rge single stars with no planets and no moons is what you get from the large clouds of gas collected by CDM halos(Abel et al.2002;O’Shea&Norman2006).

Exotic clumped binary-star and binary-planet systems are highly likely from the non-linear nature of HGD star and JPP planet formation.Heating from a binary PFP merger results in a large atmosphere for the double-mass PFP-binary that will increase its cross section for capture of more PFPs in growing clumps.Evidence is accumulating that most PNe central stars are binaries as expected from HGD(De Marco et al.2004;Soker2006; Moe&De Marco2006).One of the brightest stars in the sky is Gamma Velorum in Vela, with two binaries and two rogues all within1016m of each other,the nominal size of a PNe.One of the binaries is a WR star and a blue supergiant B-star with1.5×1011m (1AU)separation.From aperture masking interferometry using the10-m aperture Keck I telescope,another WR-B binary is the pinwheel nebula Wolf-Rayet104in Sagitarrius, where the stars are separated by only3×1011m(3AU)and are105brighter than the sun (Tuthill et al.1999).How much of the apparent brightness and apparent masses of these systems is provided by evaporating JPPs?The pinwheel nebula dust clouds are surprising this close to large hot stars(≈50kK)that should reduce dust to 6c1755d728ea81c758f57893plex shock cooling induced dust models from colliding superwinds(Usov1991;Pilyugin&Usov2007) to explain the dust of pinweel nebulae are unnecessary if the stars are accreting a rain of dusty evaporating JPPs.When one member of the binary dies to become a shrinking white-dwarf it appears that the smaller star begins to eat the larger one(creating a brown dwarf desert).Few WD binaries are found with large mass ratios(Hoard et al.2007).Either the WD binary has an equal mass companion or just a JPP accretion disk(Su et al.2007).

Large PFP atmospheres from mergers and close encounters increase their frictional interaction with other randomly encountered ambient PFP atmospheres.This slows the relative motion of the objects and increases the time between their collisions and mergers. Radiation to outer space will cause the PFP atmospheres to cool and eventually rain out and freeze if no further close encounters or collisions occur,leading to a new state of metastable equilibrium with the ambient gas.To reach Jupiter mass,10?6M mass PFPs and their growing sons and daughters must pair10times(210≈103).To reach stellar mass,20PFP binary pairings are required(220≈106).Because of the binary nature of PFP structure

本文来源：https://www.bwwdw.com/article/aghe.html