Uranus "Hit by Rock twice the size of Earth" (AP)

Something huge has been creating havoc in our solar system according to this story and I am inclined to believe that much.

Ok, so a 'rock' is believed to have hit Uranus. This rock was twice the size of Earth and they call it a rock. WTH, I call that a planet? Spin Dr's at the AP news.

apnews.com...


Anyway, this is why the planet Uranus is supposedly rotating on it's side. Strange as anything to me for them to call a planet a rock. Bigger though is the fact that this is Immanual Velikovsky "World's in Collision". Can anyone deny of the deniers?


We have a solar system that has some explaining to do. How do we get a planet hitting another without something extra ordinary from the simple cosmology we are told to believe about our particular system?

The facts that we have are:

The asteroid belt which is chock full of mystery and resources

Uranus is on it's side against all the other planets pattern of rotation that the solar system uses

Mars with a huge scar and virtually no atmosphere



I am sure some will say there is more that stick out also as those three do to me. These are clues to something creating havoc.

Uranus Hit by Rock twice the size of Earth

I thought I felt something a few minutes ago.

a reply to: Justoneman

The early solar system (billions of years ago) was a very chaotic place. Astronomers believe there may have been up to 20 small (think Earth and Mars sized) inner planets, most of which were either destroyed through collision, flung out of the solar system, or into the sun.

There are several theories as to why Uranus ended up on it's side, and a large impactor is one of them.....a very long time ago.

Mars has been smacked around a lot, has no plate tectonics, and cracks in the crust from very large impacts early on in the solar system's history could produce something like Valles Marineris (the "scar" you're talking about).

Asteroid belt is simply left overs from planet formation, unable to form due to tugging by Jupiter, and in fact Jupiter helped herd it into place.

You left out Venus....which rotates backwards from all the other planets (sun rises in the west on Venus) and a single day on Venus is longer than it's year. One of the popular theories as to why is that it got hit by something massive, that not only slowed it's spin down, but physically flipped the planet over, hence the "backwards" rotation.

Earth's moon is believed to have been formed by a giant impact by a Mars sized body about 3.8 billion years ago.

a reply to: Justoneman

lol... from your title, I thought this might have happened recently...
maybe you should change your title, just so no one has a heart attack""

I believe for a rock (no matter how big it is) to be a planet, it has to be part of a solar system and held there by gravity. maybe I am wrong, but don't think so. this sounds like it was a large wayward rock sailing through space.. maybe a chunk of a destroyed planet from a neighboring solar system that had a unfortunate event happen.

a reply to: Justoneman

Bigger though is the fact that this is Immanual Velikovsky "World's in Collision".

Except that Velikovsky's stuff supposedly happened in historical times (not in the very early period of the formation of the Solar System) and said that Venus was a comet that came out of Jupiter then randomly careened around the Solar System.

What got him started was the biblical story of Joshua commanding the Sun and Moon to stop moving for an entire day and invoking a devastating hail of stones from the sky during his battle with the Amorites. Velikovsky was also seeking a physical reason for the plagues inflicted on the Egyptians in Exodus.

www.skyandtelescope.com...

Uranus is on it's side against all the other planets pattern of rotation that the solar system uses

Not really. Venus is rather odd in that respect as well. Probably also as a result of a collision in the early Solar System, which seems to have been a chaotic place. Seems the Moon could be a result of such a collision as well.

Mars with a huge scar and virtually no atmosphere

A scar which seems to be the result of faulting and erosion.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Justoneman

lol... from your title, I thought this might have happened recently...
maybe you should change your title, just so no one has a heart attack""

I believe for a rock (no matter how big it is) to be a planet, it has to be part of a solar system and held there by gravity. maybe I am wrong, but don't think so. this sounds like it was a large wayward rock sailing through space.. maybe a chunk of a destroyed planet from a neighboring solar system that had a unfortunate event happen.

Twice the size of earth, how did any planet or rock get as big as that?

It is a monster of a planet and would turn Earth into Dust like the asteroid belt. Chaos is still ruling it wasn't a one time thing for any of the planets.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Justoneman

Bigger though is the fact that this is Immanual Velikovsky "World's in Collision".

Except that Velikovsky's stuff supposedly happened in historical times (not in the very early period of the formation of the Solar System) and said that Venus was a comet that came out of Jupiter then randomly careened around the Solar System.

Uranus is on it's side against all the other planets pattern of rotation that the solar system uses

Not really. Venus is rather odd in that respect as well. Probably also as a result of a collision in the early Solar System, which seems to have been a chaotic place. Seems the Moon could be a result of such a collision as well.

Mars with a huge scar and virtually no atmosphere

A scar which seems to be the result of faulting and erosion.

Perhaps timelines need tweaking Phage but Chaos rules still.

a reply to: Justoneman

Perhaps timelines need tweaking Phage but Chaos rules still.

The Solar System has settled down to quite an orderly arrangement after several billion years. But in the longer term (much longer), it is true that chaos will prevail.

nvm

a reply to: Justoneman

There have been plenty of "Super Earth's" detected by us, 30 so far. Their size ranges from Earth sized to around 10 times the size of Earth.

How are they made? Simple really: Gravity and a lot of solid material.

originally posted by: Justoneman

We have a solar system that has some explaining to do.

Sounds like you've already got the answer to why Uranus jiggles. Just enjoy the jiggle and move on.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Justoneman

lol... from your title, I thought this might have happened recently...
maybe you should change your title, just so no one has a heart attack""

...

I know, right?

I already had petted the dogs and told them they had been good boys, and called my parents to tell 'em I was comin' to visit...real soon!

a reply to: Justoneman

Asteroid belt the core remain's of a planet, the majority has been lost to orbital oscillation and gravitational influence pulled out of the asteroid belt but even then the original planet would have been much larger than the sum total of the asteroid belt material because when this world or world's was destroyed the majority of that debris that was thrown out from the impact destructive event would have been at different velocity's and only those part's of that material that fit into the suitable velocity's would have been left to create the asteroid belt.

It is not a remnant of the original Accretion disc no matter how they try to spin it, the same guy's that do try to spin it also believe that the ring's of Saturn are the remnant's of moon's so how do they model the Asteroid belt differently?.

There WOULD have been an asteroid belt originally as the planet's formed but that would have formed many belt's in many different orbit's before the gravitational influence of the new planet's that formed pulled those belt's asunder - ALL of them so for an asteroid belt to still remain is far more improbably than for it to have been far more recently formed.

We know of at least ONE star that passed relatively close to our own solar system, close enough to have exerted a gravitational influence sufficient to cause some disruption and there are too few bodies in the oort (the REAL last vestige of the original accretion disc at the extreme edge of the solar system) cloud to fit the model predicted by the flawed standard theory's of the solar system so something may have disrupted that.

Likely in the last four plus billion years of our Sun's existence there have been entire planet's formed and destroyed several time's before the solar system calmed down especially in it's infant years as a new sun with new planet's orbiting it emerging from it's original stellar nursery with it's sister star's, likely after that there were more than one very close pass by other stars and there own planetary body's, it is even possible that some of these planetary body's would have been disturbed enough by this that they may even have switched star's but if so they would be highly eccentric orbit's and like electron's shared by different nuclei this would be those planets in the highest orbital path's that were so traded as well as those most disturbed, this may have created or caused a large outer planetary mass to enter an extreme elliptical orbit and such a planet may then periodically visit the inner solar system before once again disappearing like a giant comet the size of a planet back into almost interstellar space perhaps even going further out than the oort cloud itself, such a planet may also not share the same equator of our solar system as our other planet's do and indeed may be a borrowed body stolen from one of those near passes by another sun that came too close.

Velikovsky's theory at least is sound but is it correct or close to correct even on some point's of fact?.
I believe so but am not an astronomer simply using common sense in my argument.

a reply to: Justoneman

I don't know why when I read the title that I thought this event happened recently. So when I started reading I got disappointed.

a reply to: Justoneman

No one is going to do it so I will.



That would hurt.

a reply to: LABTECH767

Part of your argument surrounding the idea of a solar system scale accretion disc seems to imply that it wouldn't have been possible because it would have had layering in an oscillation pattern away from the sun?

That in itself would be a flawed thought, because gravity pulls equally in all directions. A disc mass further away, would pull the middle ones to it. The Sun isn't the only attractive force in that equation.

With a body like Jupiter existing, it isn't so hard to believe.

a reply to: Archivalist

Not necessarily, all of the planet's have slightly eccentric orbit's and that mean's that by right's the Asteroid belt really should not be there if it was as old as the solar system and an Accretion remnant (it simply has FAR too many body's in that region of shared orbital pathway's for it to be natural under the variable tidal stressed they are exposed too for it to be an accretion remnant, a few asteroid yes but a mass of asteroid's so great no way sorry).
My argument is that it HAS to be the remains of a planet simply because if not then were are the OTHER asteroid belt's in the OTHER orbital spaces around the solar system, why only one defined asteroid belt, why not several.

There WOULD have been several asteroid belt's back when the accretion disc remnant's did still exist AND these belt's would likely have existed between each of the major early planet's of the young solar system BUT over time the orbital and gravitation tug and pull upon them would have broken them up OR they would have formed into smaller planetoid's and therefore gained sufficient mass given there orbital position and orbital velocity to have migrated inward into orbit's that were for them then more stable given there size, these would also have perhaps then periodically revisited there previous asteroid belt's at the extreme outermost swing of there new elliptical orbital path's and over time there gravity would also have shepherded those remaining body's out of there semi - stable orbit's and due to there own elliptical orbit's over time these new planetoid's which may have both crossed orbital pathways with there own cousin's and the major new planet's would have had these new orbit's disrupted by these larger young planets of the early solar system and either been ejected from there orbit, gobbed up by the gravity well's of the larger planet's or even been throw into the sun.

The problem with the Asteroid belt is NOT it's existence but how such a dense - relatively - area of asteroid's could even hope to survive from the early accretion disc, there may be asteroid left in stable orbit's from the accretion disc between the major planet's but there paucity means' that they are NOT recognized as belt's like the so called Asteroid belt is.

So the asteroid belt HAS to have a much more recent origin than the Accretion disc and such an origin can only be explained by the break up of a planetary body in the orbit these scant remnant's of that much larger mass must have once occupied, either it was a collision or something else caused that body to explode and fragment.

a reply to: LABTECH767

Can I get some numbers?

Mass distribution, number of separate objects, orbital characteristics?

Personally, I'm fine with any explanation of our solar system's origin.

No matter how it started, correct or incorrect knowledge will not directly affect my life, nor has it.

I have a mild interest in seeing the math necessary to determine this was a full planetoid.

I was pretty sure, the reason we don't have an "asteroid ring" stretching the distance of our system is because some of it became planets.

The chunk that didn't was supposedly prevented from coalescing because of the forces of the outer giants.
(Jupiter, Saturn)

Give me something that looks like mathematical effort, and I'll entertain a new idea.

originally posted by: Justoneman
Something huge has been creating havoc in our solar system according to this story and I am inclined to believe that much....

...We have a solar system that has some explaining to do. How do we get a planet hitting another without something extra ordinary from the simple cosmology we are told to believe about our particular system?...

I'm not sure what you mean by "the cosmology we are told to believe". What the going theories tell us about the formation of the solar system as we know it today is that, as eriktheawful pointed out, the early solar system was home to maybe dozens of planets buzzing around -- and collisions were going to happen, especially before the current planets cleared their orbital paths and settled into their current orbits.

So yeah -- what we are told by science is that there were other planetary objects causing havoc in the early solar system.

Earth itself was possibly hit by a Mars-sized planet 4 Billion years ago. I say "Earth", but the planet that got hit and would eventually become Earth was very much changed by the huge collision.

Mars with a huge scar and virtually no atmosphere

The scar on Mars (Valles Marineris) is almost certainly NOT due to a collision. It was likely formed when massive lava flows created so much weight to that area that the crust could no longer supported it, causing faults and landslides.

As for Mars losing its atmosphere: it's possible that a planetary collision was involved, but it isn't necessary. Mars could have lost its atmosphere due to a combination of its low gravity not being able to hold onto a thick atmosphere, plus the atmosphere being blown away be solar winds due to a lack of a planetary magnetic field.

a reply to: Phage

You gotta give it to Mars.......that is one giant fault line, or cluster of fault lines, that seemingly looks like maybe the red planet had a brush with another interstellar body in the distant past.

I'd like to know the makeup and shape of Mars continental plates.