Chapter 6 Going Backward: The Path of Transformation You are now ready to make your own return to the past. It is a meaningful journey of self-discovery. An odyssey into the past not only allows you to see who you were, but, in a deeper sense, it connects you with

We've been studying the solar system for hundreds of years, and you'd think we'd have answers to every frequently asked question about it. Why do the planets rotate, why are they in such orbits, why does the Moon not fall to the Earth... But we cannot boast of this. To see this, just look at our neighbor, Venus.

Scientists began to study it closely in the middle of the last century, and at first it seemed relatively dull and uninteresting. However, it soon became clear that this is the most natural hell with acid rain, which also rotates in the opposite direction! More than half a century has passed since then. We've learned a lot about Venus's climate, but we still haven't been able to figure out why it spins differently than everyone else. Although there are many hypotheses on this matter.

In astronomy, rotation in the opposite direction is called retrograde. Since the entire solar system was formed from one rotating gas cloud, all the planets move in orbit in the same direction - counterclockwise, if you look at this whole picture from above, from the north pole of the Earth. In addition, these celestial bodies also rotate around their own axis - also counterclockwise. But this does not apply to the two planets of our system - Venus and Uranus.

Uranus is actually lying on its side, most likely due to a couple of collisions with large objects. Venus rotates clockwise, and this is even more problematic to explain. One early hypothesis suggested that Venus collided with an asteroid, and the impact was so strong that the planet began to spin in the other direction. This theory was introduced to the interested public in 1965 by two astronomers processing radar data. Moreover, the definition of “thrown in” is in no way a derogation. As the scientists themselves stated, quote: “This possibility is dictated only by imagination. It is hardly possible to obtain evidence to support it.” Extremely convincing, isn't it? Be that as it may, this hypothesis does not stand up to the test of simple mathematics - it turns out that an object whose size is sufficient to reverse the rotation of Venus will simply destroy the planet. Its kinetic energy will be 10,000 times greater than what is needed to smash the planet into dust. In this regard, the hypothesis was sent to the distant shelves of scientific libraries.

It was replaced by several theories that had some kind of evidence base. One of the most popular, proposed in 1970, suggested that Venus originally rotated this way. It’s just that at some point in its history it turned upside down! This could have happened due to processes occurring inside Venus and in its atmosphere.

This planet, like the Earth, is multi-layered. There is also a core, mantle and crust. As the planet rotates, the core and mantle experience friction in the area of ​​their contact. The atmosphere of Venus is very thick, and, thanks to the heat and gravity of the Sun, it is subject, like the rest of the planet, to the tidal influence of our star. According to the described hypothesis, friction between the crust and the mantle, coupled with atmospheric tidal fluctuations, created a torque, and Venus, losing stability, capsized. Simulations showed that this could only happen if Venus had an axis tilt of about 90 degrees from the moment of its formation. Later this number decreased somewhat. In any case, this is a highly unusual hypothesis. Just imagine - a tumbling planet! This is some kind of circus, not space.

In 1964, a hypothesis was put forward according to which Venus changed its rotation gradually - it slowed down, stopped, and began to spin in the other direction. This could be caused by several factors, including interactions with the Sun's magnetic field, atmospheric tides, or a combination of several forces. The atmosphere of Venus, according to this theory, spun in the other direction first. This created a force that first slowed down Venus and then spun it retrograde. As a bonus, this hypothesis also explains the long length of the day on the planet.

In the debate between the last two, there is no clear favorite yet. To understand which one to choose, we need to know much more about the dynamics of early Venus, in particular about its rotation speed and axis tilt. According to a 2001 paper published in the journal Nature, Venus would be more likely to capsize if it had a high initial rotation speed. But, if it was less than one revolution in 96 hours with a small axial tilt (less than 70 degrees), the second hypothesis looks more plausible. Unfortunately, it is quite difficult for scientists to look back four billion years. Therefore, until we invent a time machine or carry out computer simulations of unrealistically high quality today, progress in this matter is not expected.

It is clear that this is not a complete description of the discussion regarding the rotation of Venus. For example, the very first of the hypotheses we described—the one that dates back to 1965—received an unexpected development not long ago. In 2008, it was suggested that our neighbor could have spun in the opposite direction at a time when she was still a small, unintelligent planetesimal. An object approximately the same size as Venus itself should have crashed into it. Instead of the destruction of Venus, there would be a merger of two celestial bodies into one full-fledged planet. The main difference from the original hypothesis here is that scientists may have evidence in favor of such a turn of events.

Based on what we know about the topography of Venus, there is very little water on it. Compared to Earth, of course. The moisture could disappear from there as a result of a catastrophic collision of cosmic bodies. That is, this hypothesis would also explain the dryness of Venus. Although here, too, no matter how ironic it may sound in this case, there are pitfalls. Water from the surface of the planet could simply evaporate under the rays of the hot Sun here. To clarify this issue, a mineralogical analysis of rocks from the surface of Venus is needed. If water is present in them, the hypothesis of an early collision will disappear. The problem is that such analyzes have not yet been carried out. Venus is extremely unfriendly to the robots we send to it. Destroys without any hesitation.

Be that as it may, building an interplanetary station with a Venus rover capable of working here is still easier than a time machine. Therefore, let's not lose hope. Perhaps humanity will receive an answer to the riddle about the “wrong” rotation of Venus in our lifetime.

Venus is the second planet of the solar system. Its neighbors are Mercury and Earth. The planet was named after the Roman goddess of love and beauty - Venus. However, it soon turned out that the surface of the planet had nothing in common with beauty.

Knowledge about this celestial body was very scarce until the middle of the 20th century due to dense clouds hiding Venus from the view of telescopes. However, with the development of technical capabilities, humanity has learned many new and interesting facts about this amazing planet. Many of them raised a number of questions that are still unanswered.

Today we will discuss hypotheses that explain why Venus rotates counterclockwise, and tell interesting facts about it that are known to planetary science today.

What do we know about Venus?

In the 60s, scientists still had hope that the conditions on living organisms. These hopes and ideas were embodied in their works by science fiction writers who told about the planet as a tropical paradise.

However, after the spaceships that provided the first insight were sent to the planet, scientists came to disappointing conclusions.

Not only is Venus uninhabitable, it has a very aggressive atmosphere that destroyed the first few spacecraft sent into orbit. But despite the fact that contact with them was lost, the researchers still managed to get an idea of ​​the chemical composition of the planet’s atmosphere and its surface.

Researchers were also interested in the question of why Venus rotates counterclockwise, just like Uranus.

Twin Planet

Today it is known that Venus and Earth are very similar in physical characteristics. Both of them belong to the terrestrial group of planets, like Mars and Mercury. These four planets have few or no moons, weak magnetic fields, and no ring system.

Venus and Earth have similar masses and are only slightly smaller than our Earth) and also rotate in similar orbits. However, this is where the similarities end. Otherwise, the planet is in no way similar to Earth.

The atmosphere on Venus is very aggressive and consists of 95% carbon dioxide. The temperature of the planet is absolutely unsuitable for life, as it reaches 475 °C. In addition, the planet has very high pressure (92 times higher than on Earth), which will crush a person if he suddenly decides to walk on its surface. Clouds of sulfur dioxide that create precipitation from sulfuric acid will also destroy all living things. The layer of these clouds reaches 20 km. Despite its poetic name, the planet is a hellish place.

What is the speed of rotation of Venus around its axis? As a result of research, one Venusian day is equal to 243 Earth days. The planet rotates at a speed of only 6.5 km/h (for comparison, the rotation speed of our Earth is 1670 km/h). Moreover, one Venusian year is 224 Earth days.

Why does Venus rotate counterclockwise?

This question has been worrying scientists for decades. However, so far no one has been able to answer it. There have been many hypotheses, but none of them have yet been confirmed. However, we will look at some of the most popular and interesting of them.

The fact is that if you look at the planets of the solar system from above, Venus rotates counterclockwise, while all other celestial bodies (except Uranus) rotate clockwise. These include not only planets, but also asteroids and comets.

When viewed from the north pole, Uranus and Venus rotate clockwise, while all other celestial bodies rotate counterclockwise.

Reasons why Venus rotates counterclockwise

However, what was the reason for such a deviation from the norm? Why does Venus rotate counterclockwise? There are several popular hypotheses.

1. Once upon a time, at the dawn of the formation of our solar system, there were no planets around the Sun. There was only one disk of gas and dust that rotated clockwise, which was eventually transmitted to other planets. A similar rotation was observed in Venus. However, the planet likely soon collided with a huge body that crashed into it against its rotation. Thus, the space object seemed to “launch” the movement of Venus in the opposite direction. Perhaps Mercury is to blame for this. This is one of the most interesting theories that explains several surprising facts. Mercury was probably once a satellite of Venus. However, later he collided with it tangentially, giving Venus part of his mass. He himself flew into a lower orbit around the Sun. That is why its orbit has a curved line, and Venus rotates in the opposite direction.
2. Venus can be rotated by its atmosphere. The width of its layer reaches 20 km. At the same time, its mass is slightly less than that of the Earth. The density of Venus's atmosphere is very high and literally squeezes the planet. Perhaps it is the dense atmosphere that rotates the planet in a different direction, which explains why it rotates so slowly - only 6.5 km/hour.
3. Other scientists, observing how Venus rotates on its axis, came to the conclusion that the planet is turned upside down. It continues to move in the same direction as the other planets, but due to its position it rotates in the opposite direction. Scientists believe that such a phenomenon could be caused by the influence of the Sun, which caused strong gravitational tides in combination with friction between the mantle and the core of Venus itself.

Conclusion

Venus is a terrestrial planet, unique in nature. The reason why it rotates in the opposite direction is still a mystery to mankind. Perhaps someday we will solve it. For now, we can only make assumptions and hypotheses.

There is an amazing feature in the solar system. This feature literally lies on the surface and seems to be striking to anyone who knows at least something about our planets. But that's not true. NO ONE NOTICES HER!

I'm going to tell you about her. This can be done in two sentences. But I want to not just introduce you to it, but convey it in such a way that you are puzzled and surprised. I'm not sure it will work, but I'll try
First let's answer a simple question:

When I first became interested in the origin of the solar system and learned that Venus rotates in the opposite direction, I was very puzzled. How could an object rotating in the opposite direction be formed in a system in which everything moves in the same direction? There was no answer to this question, and it is difficult to imagine what it might look like.
First I tried to figure out what exactly the phrase “rotates in the opposite direction” means. Because in the opposite direction you can rotate either relative to the stars or relative to the Sun. A simple example. If a planet is always turned to the Sun with the same side, as the Moon is to the Earth, then the Sun will not move across the sky of this planet. In this case, the sidereal day is equal to the solar year, and such rotation is called synchronous. And if the sidereal day is longer than a year, then the Sun will move across the sky of such a planet in the opposite direction, rising in the west and setting in the east. If Venus rotated in the opposite direction in precisely this sense (the Sun rises in the west of the planet and sets in the east), then such rotation could be somehow explained.

For example, one could assume that the solar tides first slowed down the rotation of Venus, sdkeeping it synchronous, and then in some incomprehensible way Venus moved to another orbit so that its year became shorter than a day. Another option: it looks more attractive. Mercury used to be a satellite of Venus and slowed down its rotation to such an extent that the sidereal day became longer than the orbital period. After which Mercury, having moved away to a considerable distance, escaped from the gravity of Venus and became an independent planet.
But both of these assumptions can be immediately rejected, because Venus rotates in the opposite direction relative to the stars! Both solar tides and the presence of a large satellite could slow down the rotation of Venus. But they couldn't make it reverse. Moreover, knowing the magnitude of solar tides on Earth, we can estimate them on Venus and draw a very strict conclusion that earlier, during its origin, Venus should have rotated in the opposite direction much faster than it does now.
As long as I held to the traditional view of the origin of the solar system, the reverse rotation of Venus seemed like a clear logical contradiction. But once I became a proponent of the explosion hypothesis, the reverse rotation of Venus had a simple explanation.

2. Let's look for a double!

Let's consider a rapidly rotating massive body, from the depths of which an object is ejected as a result of volcanic activity. In what direction will it rotate?
The angular momentum of a rotating body is equal to the sum of the angular momentum of its parts. Therefore, any part of it will have the same direction of rotation as the whole body. Therefore, if the ejected object is significantly smaller than the parent body, then it will rotate in the same direction as the body that gave birth to it.

What if the parent body, as a result of internal activity, is divided into approximately two equal parts? How then will these parts rotate?
First, for simplicity, we assume that the parent body did not initially rotate. In this case, obviously, due to the law of conservation of angular momentum, the scattered halves will rotate strictly in opposite directions. But the parent body rotates very quickly. How will its rotation affect the rotation of the parts?
To answer this question, consider two bodies of approximately equal mass that are located close to each other and rapidly rotate around a common center of mass as a single unit. Suppose that as a result of certain internal processes, the distance between these bodies has increased significantly, for example, a hundred times. According to the law of conservation of angular momentum, the linear speed of each body relative to the common center of mass will also decrease by a hundred times, and the angular speed, respectively, by ten thousand times. Therefore, in this case, the joint general rotation can be neglected.

So, if the parent body breaks up into two approximately equal parts, then the resulting daughter bodies will rotate in almost opposite directions.
Therefore, if in some planetary system there is a body that rotates in the opposite direction (relative to most other bodies), then we can state the following.

This body arose as a result of the disintegration of the parent body into two approximately equal parts. This means that somewhere nearby there is a body similar to it, which rotates in the right direction and which is approximately equal to it in mass, size, density and chemical composition. Simply put, next to a body that rotates in the opposite direction, there MUST EXIST ITS DOUBLE, rotating in the forward direction.

Does Venus have such a double?

“The results of the mission of the interplanetary station “Venus Express” give reason to assume that Venus was once a twin of the Earth, not only in size, but also in the processes that occurred on the surface” (quote from RIA Novosti).

3. Half of the planets are twins!

Yes, Venus has a double - this is the Earth.
Venus has always been considered the Earth's twin. Both planets have almost the same size, mass, and density. And the more scientists study Venus, the more convinced they are of its similarity to the Earth.

If our reasoning is correct, then we can reconstruct a small episode from the history of the Solar System.
Once upon a time, more than four billion years ago, there was neither Earth nor Venus, but there was one parent body. Then, as a result of an explosion of super-dense matter, it broke up into two similar planets, which began to move away from each other due to the law of planetary divergence. This is how Earth and Venus appeared.

So, we have proposed a completely logical explanation for the fact that Venus rotates in the opposite direction. However, there remains the possibility that our explanation is incorrect, that Venus rotates in the opposite direction for some other reason, and the presence of its twin, the Earth, is simply a coincidence. Therefore, it is worth looking to see if there are other pairs among the planets similar to the Earth-Venus pair.

It turns out there is! These are the planets Uranus and Neptune. They are close to each other in mass, size, density and rotate in opposite directions. Indeed, the rotation of Uranus is the opposite! Its axis is inclined to the orbit by 98 degrees.

Let's take another close look at the planets of the solar system. There are only eight of them (see photo). They differ significantly from each other in mass, density, and size. For example, Jupiter is six thousand times heavier than Mercury, and Saturn has a density eight times lower than Earth.

If you remove the two largest (Jupiter and Saturn) and the two smallest (Mercury and Mars) from the eight planets, then the remaining four are a pair of doubles. It is worth noting that Mars is not similar to Mercury, and the density of the gas giant Jupiter is almost twice (!) higher than the density of the similar gas giant Saturn.

One would expect the masses of the planets to be distributed somewhat randomly from smallest to largest.
But that's not true. There are two pairs of planets with very similar masses. And not only their masses, but also their sizes, and, accordingly, their densities are close. And that's not all. They have similar chemical compositions. They are in NEIGHBORING orbits and rotating in OPPOSITE directions!

So, exactly half of the planets are two pairs of twins: Earth-Venus and Uranus-Neptune. And the two planets that rotate in the opposite direction are precisely from these two pairs. Isn't it an interesting coincidence?

Nobody paid attention to this strange and unlikely coincidence. Not a single planetary scientist was interested in him. Simply because it will not say anything to the representative of traditional cosmogony.

Can we make any other predictions about the properties of twins based on the most general considerations based on the explosion hypothesis? Yes.

4. Doubles share information with us

So, of the eight planets in the solar system, exactly half are twins. In addition, only two planets (Venus and Uranus) rotate in the opposite direction (this reverse rotation is UNEXPLAINABLE within the framework of the generally accepted paradigm) and these two planets belong to twins. Therefore, if we take the point of view of the explosive hypothesis, we can draw a conclusion. Venus and Earth were formed as a result of the disintegration of the parent body into two approximately equal masses. The pair Uranus and Neptune were formed in the same way.
Let's see what additional conclusions can be drawn from this.

Firstly, when a rapidly rotating body breaks up into two approximately equal parts, one can expect that it is the smaller part that will rotate in the opposite direction. And the larger part will change the direction of its rotation not so radically: the angle of inclination of its axis as a result of the explosion will change by less than 90 degrees.
Secondly, superdense prestellar matter is located near the very center of the parent body. The daughter body that receives more of the mass of the parent body will also receive most of the superdense matter. Therefore, the heavier twin must have a higher density.
Conclusion. The less massive twin should rotate in the opposite direction, and the heavier one should have a higher density and exhibit greater activity (after all, it contains more super-dense prestellar matter).
Indeed, Uranus is lighter than Neptune and it is it that rotates in the opposite direction. And the heavier Neptune also has a higher density. In addition, it is more active than Uranus. The same can be said about the other pair of planets. The less massive Venus rotates backwards and has a lower density. It is less active than the Earth. Venus has no magnetic field and, although there are signs of active volcanism in the past, no modern volcanic activity has yet been detected.

From a generally accepted point of view, it is very strange that the density of Venus is less than that of the Earth. After all, the sizes of these bodies are similar, as is their chemical composition. And since Venus is noticeably closer to the Sun, it should lose more light elements than the Earth. Therefore, its density should be higher than that of the Earth. But that's not true. Its density is LESS. NOBODY can explain this fact. And within the framework of the explosive hypothesis, it is easily explained. Venus, as a smaller twin of the Earth, has less superdense matter, so its density is less than that of the Earth.

Using the explosion hypothesis and without making ANY more assumptions, we very easily explained a whole series of facts that are UNEXPLAINABLE within the framework of the accretion theory.

Are there other twins in the Solar System?

Pluto Puzzles

We will begin to apply the explosion hypothesis to the Pluto system, because there are several knots tied in it that the accretion hypothesis cannot untie. And the explosive hypothesis will untie these knots EASILY and WITHOUT much difficulty. But first, let's consider those questions that the accretion hypothesis is NOT capable of answering.

1. Where was Pluto formed?

Pluto's orbit now intersects Neptune's orbit. This is what the projection of their orbits onto the ecliptic plane looks like:

But these objects never come close to each other. As soon as Pluto moves inside Neptune's orbit, Neptune always ends up in the opposite part of its orbit. Since the ratio of the orbital periods of the bodies is exactly 3:2. Obviously, Pluto could not have formed in its place and here’s why.
Let us imagine a time when there were no planets yet, but only (according to generally accepted ideas) gas and dust subdisks, from which planets were subsequently to form as a result of accretion. If the gas and dust subdisk of Pluto intersected with the subdisk of Neptune, then the latter, due to its large mass, would absorb the former. As a result, Pluto would not have formed.
Or maybe Pluto was formed after Neptune was formed? In this case, Neptune, with its gravitational influence, would prevent the formation of Pluto.
It is worth emphasizing that even without interference from Neptune, Pluto still would not have been able to form in its orbit.
Firstly, this orbit is highly inclined, and secondly, it is highly elongated:

The presence of at least one of these two features allows us to assert: Pluto could not have formed in its modern place. And here's why.
Let's imagine a subdisk from which Pluto should form, and this subdisk has an inclination of several degrees to the Laplace plane (it almost coincides with the ecliptic plane). Each speck of dust or piece of ice in this subdisk will move around the Sun and, according to the laws of celestial mechanics, its orbit will precess. In this case, the ascending angle will change monotonically. Since the rate of change of the ascending node is different for different grains of dust (ice), the tilted subdisk will gradually turn into a torus. Further collisions of dust grains and pieces of ice in this torus will lead to the fact that it will turn into a flat subdisk, which will be located strictly in the Laplace plane. And if any object is subsequently formed from this subdisk as a result of accretion, then the plane of its orbit will coincide with the Laplace plane. And the plane of Pluto’s orbit is inclined to the Laplace plane by 17 degrees! Why such a large inclination?
Now suppose that we have a subdisk that lies in the Laplace plane, but has a large eccentricity. That is, every speck of dust and piece of ice in this subdisk rotates in a highly elongated orbit around the Sun. The collision of dust grains and ice floes with each other will lead to their orbits gradually becoming rounded. To what extent?
If we believe that dust particles and pieces of ice should begin to stick together, then it is clear that this will not happen until their relative velocities become sufficiently small. Let's say they will be on the order of a meter per second or less. Pluto's orbital speed is about 5 km/sec. For the relative velocities of dust grains to be of the order of 1 m/sec, the eccentricity of their orbits must be of the order of 1:5000. That is, for dust grains to begin to stick together, their orbits must have a negligible eccentricity. During the adhesion process, the eccentricity can only decrease (due to energy dissipation). Consequently, the orbit of a body formed as a result of accretion should be perfectly circular. And Pluto's perihelion is twice as close as its aphelion. It is clear that it could not have formed in such an orbit.
So, Pluto could not have formed in its current orbit. Firstly, because it is very elongated, secondly, because it is highly inclined, and thirdly, because it intersects the orbit of Neptune. Where was Pluto formed?

2. Why does Pluto contain very little ice?

Why are Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune so much larger than the terrestrial planets? Why do giants contain a lot of light substances?
According to the generally accepted cosmogonic concept, the answer is this. The giant planets formed behind the so-called ice line, passing somewhere between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter. Inside this line, water exists in a gaseous state, and beyond it - in a frozen state. According to this view, there was much more solid matter behind the ice line than inside it, simply because the most abundant element in the Universe (after, of course, hydrogen and helium) is oxygen and, therefore, there was quite a lot of water in the accretion disk.

Terrestrial planets, forming inside the ice line, grew due to various compounds of silicon, iron, carbon, oxygen and other heavy elements. And the giant planets, in addition to these compounds, also grew due to water ice, which was much more abundant. This is why they grew to objects much larger than the terrestrial planets, and this allowed them to subsequently capture large quantities of different gases, including hydrogen and helium.
According to this now generally accepted point of view, in the region of the formation of giant planets, the bulk of solid matter was ice (except for water, this is carbon dioxide, methane, ammonia and other ices), and much less was dust. Therefore, small objects formed in the region of the giant planets should consist mainly of ice with a small addition of various rocks and, therefore, should have an average density of about 1 gram per cubic centimeter or slightly more. A good example of such icy bodies are the satellites of Saturn: Mimas, which has a density of 1.15, Tethys 0.985, Iapetus 1.09.
From this point of view, it can be argued that Pluto should consist mainly of various ices with a small admixture of rocks and have an average density of the order of 1 gram per cubic centimeter. But that's not true. Its density is almost twice as high: 1.86.
The densities of the most common terrestrial rocks range from about 2.6 (granite) to 3.2 (basalt). The density of lunar rocks and stony meteorites is approximately the same. From this we can conclude that Pluto contains even LESS ice than rock.
Why is there so little ice? After all, the amount of ice in the outer part of the Solar System should significantly exceed the amount of refractory substances. Otherwise, it is not clear why the giant planets are many times larger than the terrestrial planets.
But maybe Pluto, due to its smallness, lost a large amount of light substances during its existence? And that is why its density is so high.
If this is so, then why did not Saturn's moons lose light matter? They are 4 times closer to the Sun than Pluto. In addition, Charon, a satellite of Pluto, should have lost more light substances than Pluto. It is almost 10 times lighter than him.

Indeed, Charon lacks the methane atmosphere that Pluto has:

And this means that Charon either lost its methane and other light substances, or was already formed without them. In either of these two cases, the average density of Charon should be higher than the average density of Pluto. But that's not true! Charon's density is noticeably lower: 1.7.

By the way, a very weak atmosphere was recently discovered on Charon. Due to his smallness, Charon gradually loses it. And if it loses, it means that in the distant past it had a denser atmosphere. The question arises: how, at the moment of its formation, being a small object, Charon was able to capture the atmosphere, if it cannot even retain it. The same question can be asked about Pluto's atmosphere. After all, Pluto loses it too.

3. Why does Pluto rotate in the opposite direction?

And yet the most difficult question related to the origin of Pluto: why does it rotate in the opposite direction? The angle of inclination of its axis to the orbital plane is 120 degrees.

When Pluto had planet status (it was stripped of that status ten years ago), it was the third planet of nine to orbit in the opposite direction:

Typically, cosmogonists propose the following scenario to explain the large tilt of the rotation axis. This scenario is very simple: some body arrived, hit the object and changed its moment of rotation. In this case, it can be assumed that with such an impact, Pluto’s orbit was extended and it acquired a large inclination. Let's say that Pluto was initially formed in a circular orbit with a radius of about 50 astronomical units, that is, quite far from Neptune. And then it collided with some body, switched to a modern orbit and began to rotate in the opposite direction.

In order for Pluto's orbit to stretch from circular to modern elliptical, its speed must change by several kilometers per second. That is, the impacting body must have momentum, and therefore a mass comparable to the mass of Pluto. And since Pluto began to rotate in the opposite direction, the collision should have been almost head-on. In a head-on collision at a speed of several kilometers per second, both ice objects would obviously be completely vaporized. Nitrogen and methane will be irretrievably lost, but these gases are present in Pluto’s atmosphere.
And most importantly, the body that hit Pluto should itself move in orbit with a large eccentricity. Where did this eccentricity come from? Did a body collide with another body? And so on, ad infinitum?

When Pluto was discovered, its small size and strange orbit led many planetary scientists to believe that Pluto was Neptune's lost moon. By the way, Pluto and Triton are very similar in size, density, and chemical composition. Plus, they both have very strange orbits. Triton is the only large moon that orbits its planet in the opposite direction. And finally, the orbits of Pluto and Triton intersect (more precisely, not the orbits themselves, but their projections onto the ecliptic plane), which means that in the distant past both objects could have been close to each other.
Therefore, various scenarios have been repeatedly developed in which Pluto is the lost satellite of Neptune. For example, this one. Pluto was a satellite of Neptune. Then Triton flew in from somewhere and exchanged energy with Pluto. As a result, Triton became a satellite of Neptune, and Pluto was thrown into a heliocentric orbit. True, in this case it is not clear why Pluto and Triton are so similar. And most importantly, in 1979, Pluto’s satellite Charon was discovered, and after that, scenarios with the ejection of Pluto from the Neptune system began to look implausible. True, some cosmogonists tried to get out of the difficult situation this way: first, Pluto was thrown out of the Neptune system, then it captured the satellite Charon, and then, due to strong tidal forces, Charon acquired a circular orbit and began to rotate in the equatorial plane of Pluto. This scenario is too improbable, since it is unclear how Pluto could capture Charon.

If these satellites were captured, their orbits would have some (random) inclination to Charon's orbit. But all five satellites rotate strictly in the same plane - in the equatorial plane of Pluto.

If some large body had hit Pluto, rotated it in the opposite direction and transferred it to its modern elongated orbit, then Pluto would obviously have lost all its satellites. Because the escape speed for Charon is approximately 300 meters per second. For other satellites this speed is even lower.

The Pluto system looks very correct: all five satellites rotate in the same plane in circular orbits. There are only two "buts". This entire system AS ONE WHOLE is rotated relative to the orbit of Pluto by 120 degrees.

And this system moves around the Sun in a highly elongated and highly inclined orbit.

So how did Pluto and its moons form?