12th Planet was destroyed

a reply to: Ravenwatcher

Been well established since the 1960's that the asteroid belt is planetary debris stuck in its orbit.

We new knew this 50 years ago in 1976, and "The 12th Planet"- Zecaria Sitchin came out soon after...

originally posted by: Ravenwatcher
I've been looking into this for a bit and have come to the conclusion that the Asteroid belt is the missing Planet It was blown up , If you look at it and the area it's in there should be a Planet there .

I had a similar theory when I was about ten years old, but eventually I realized there's not enough mass there for a reasonable sized planet. Then we analyzed asteroids from the asteroid belt and learned that they couldn't have all been from the same planet!

originally posted by: UpThenDown
a reply to: Ravenwatcher

its not so much about the fabric, jump to 2.50 in video he loads it with marbles in both directions yet watch as they collide into each other and then the ones left are all spinning (edit otrbiting the large mass) the same way

Interesting demonstration, but somewhat misleading because it's not exactly why planets orbit the same way.

The reason planets orbit the same way is because the particles in the rotating disk of gas and dust that formed them was all rotating the same way. The demonstration has some relevance to how the rotating disk of gas and dust has all the particles rotating in the same direction. Note that the formation of a solar system from the rotating disk of gas and dust is somewhat chaotic, some planets may get flung completely out of the solar system, or may plunge into the sun after passing too close to each other, there probably were at least 20 planets or planetisemals at one time, if not more. One of the planetesimals called "Theia" is thought to have collided with the Earth to create Earth's moon.

originally posted by: datguy
Why Do the Planets Orbit in a Plane Parallel to the Spin Axis of the Sun?

Best I can do

Yes, that's a pretty good description of the rotation of the "proto-planetary disk" that forms solar systems.

originally posted by: Ravenwatcher

originally posted by: UpThenDown
a reply to: Ravenwatcher

its not so much about the fabric, jump to 2.50 in video he loads it with marbles in both directions yet watch as they collide into each other and then the ones left are all spinning (edit otrbiting the large mass) the same way

But in his experiment If he was on the other side of the World would the Marbles be spinning in the opposite direction influenced by Earths Coriolis effect , Which would not apply in space ?

It's obvious you've fallen for some of the common mythology anout the Coriolis effect which is not true. The Coriolis effect definitely exists, but it is completely overwhelmed in that demonstration in the video by the random initial motions of the marbles when he releases them into the fabric. There are hoaxes at the equator where they show water draining different directions on either side of the equator, and again in that case if it wasn't being hoaxed by some trickery, the coriolis forces of the small demo setups would be overwhelmed by the random motions of the particles initially before the draining started. The hoaxes can performed by making the initial motions non-random, see link below.

In order to see the Coriolis effect dominate those initial random motions, you need relatively large bodies of fluids, you're probably not going to see it with something you can fit in a classroom, unless it's a hoax. Maybe a body of water the size of the entire school would show the Coriolis effect dominating the initial random motions of the particles, maybe. The oceans definitely show it. Here you can read about the hoaxes at the equator about the Coriolis effect:

Busted! Top 3 equator line tricks debunked

Firstly, a container filled with water is set up perfectly on the line of the equator. The plug is removed and the water drains – apparently without a vortex being created in either direction. Next, the container is moved a few metres away from the line, and the experiment is repeated. The water now forms a vortex! Magic.

Well... not quite. While the Coriolis effect is very real, its effects would actually never be noticeable in this sort of situation. It’s actually weakest at the equator. The experiment above is a trick because the container of water in the first experiment was almost motionless before the plug was pulled, while the second one was poured in with momentum, which caused the vortex. In reality, variables such as how you pour water in, the shape of the tub, and many other factors will dictate how the water drains, not the hemisphere you are in.

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: Ravenwatcher

Been well established since the 1960's that the asteroid belt is planetary debris stuck in its orbit.

We new knew this 50 years ago in 1976, and "The 12th Planet"- Zecaria Sitchin came out soon after...

The possibility it was planetary debris has cerainly been considered, as I said I considered it myself when I was ten years old, but now we know for sure it's not debris from one planet, and there's not much debris there anyway:

The asteroid belt: Wreckage of a destroyed planet or something else?

how was this orbiting field of debris formed? Does it represent the rocky bones of a former planet from eons past, or is it a type of gathering place for a planet-to-be?

Scientists have considered both responses as possibilities over the decades. But more recent theories contend that the vast ring of space rocks likely never was a whole planet and is unlikely to be so in the relatively near galactic future. Why? There simply isn’t enough material there.

And here we get to the evidence showing it wasn't a single planet:

Scientists thought that “maybe there was a planet there and it got blown to smithereens,” explains Sean Raymond, an astronomer at the Astrophysical Laboratory of Bordeaux, in France. But after researchers began to examine the patterns in iron meteorites that fell to the Earth as meteors, Raymond says, it became clear they didn’t come from one parent body...

Just because the asteroid belt doesn’t represent the leftovers of a former planet doesn’t mean scientists have abandoned the idea entirely. The belt might have come from parts of other planets that still exist, or be part of a planetesimal — which is like a baby planet — that never completely formed before being smashed apart...

We now know the asteroid belt doesn’t contain material from a single source. Some of its components may have been derived from the general region of space it currently inhabits. Other material may have come from sources beyond the orbit of Jupiter, Bottke says. Still other asteroids may have arrived from the inner-planets zone, as bits that broke off at some point.

Are considering the age of the Asteroid belt and the fact that been losing mass for around 4 billion years ?

originally posted by: Ravenwatcher
Are considering the age of the Asteroid belt and the fact that been losing mass for around 4 billion years ?

Losing mass doesn't change the analysis of the asteroids showing they couldn't possibly have all been from the same planet.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I understand what you are saying but explain how material from different sources ended up in the same orbit where a planet should be ?

Our Science is not always correct we are all 10 years old to this day questioning and even proving old Science wrong .

originally posted by: Ravenwatcher
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I understand what you are saying but explain how material from different sources ended up where a planet should be ?

The science says the asteroids couldn't have all come from the same planet. The science does not yet have any definitive answer to that question but I can make educated guesses. My link for this article went to the wrong place in my previous post, so I'll post it again here going to the correct location, but the part I already cited mentioned some possible sources.

The asteroid belt: Wreckage of a destroyed planet or something else?I only bolded the first sentence of this paragraph before, but I'll bold the whole paragraph this time which talks about sources:

We now know the asteroid belt doesn’t contain material from a single source. Some of its components may have been derived from the general region of space it currently inhabits. Other material may have come from sources beyond the orbit of Jupiter, Bottke says. Still other asteroids may have arrived from the inner-planets zone, as bits that broke off at some point.

So that briefly mentions some possible sources of the asteroid belt material. So then we ask, how did the material not originally from the asteroid belt get from its source to the asteroid belt? This is a little complicated, but to repeat something else I already said, the early solar system was a very violent and chaotic place almost certainly with over 20 planets or planetisemals (based on simulations). So the collision of Theia with the Earth wasn't the only one, there were lots of collisions, and the debris from those collisions could go in multiple directions. Some may have got flung inward toward the sun, and some of those may have ended up in the sun, some may have got flung outward away from the sun. One idea is that Jupiter acted like a big vacuum cleaner of sorts clearing objects around its planetary orbit, so some of those could have either fallen into Jupiter, or had their paths altered by Jupiter if they traveled close to Jupiter.

So when you look at it that way, there probably could have been a huge debris field that would have extended past the asteroid belt to where Jupiter is and beyond, but the reason it doesn't extend that far is because Jupiter cleared the debris from around its orbit. In fact, that's now one of the definitions of a planet and one of the reasons why some of the objects people want to call planets are NOT planets in the current definition, it's called "Clearing the neighbourhood":

"Clearing the neighbourhood" (or dynamical dominance) around a celestial body's orbit describes the body becoming gravitationally dominant such that there are no other bodies of comparable size other than its natural satellites or those otherwise under its gravitational influence.

"Clearing the neighbourhood" is one of three necessary criteria for a celestial body to be considered a planet in the Solar System, according to the definition adopted in 2006 by the International Astronomical Union (IAU).

So that's one of the reasons why some of the objects the OP calls "planets" are no planets according to the definition adopted in 2006, they didn't clear their neighborhoods.

So in this context, consider the possibility that long ago there was debris like the asteroids in the solar system, from the sun all the way out to say Neptune. Each planet "cleared its neighborhood" but since there was no planet to do that between Mars and Jupiter, that neighborhood just didn't get cleared, so what we are looking at is the leftovers from the chaotic early solar system.

At about 20 minutes this video talks about solar system formation, showing the protoplanetary disk etc, then at about 27 minutes it talks about how Jupiter stabilizes the objects in the asteroid belt:

Order from Chaos: The Birth of the Solar System

Of course we still get hit by asteroids and one of them apparently killed off the dinosaurs, but his point is without Jupiter there, we would be getting hit by a lot more asteroids, so the astroid orbits are only somewhat stabilized by Jupiter, not completely stable.

Meh.

Asteroid Belt is not that complicated...

It has a few small minor planets. Ceres and Vesta. Ceres is large enough to be in near hydrostatic equilibrium.

Jupiter's mass did that. So large any larger planets would be smashed into each other and were.



Jupiter's mass is so strong it pulls asteroids from the Main Belt into it's la grange points.

It's just a no man's land of significant planet formation. Ceres is ¼ the size of the moon, and even that much of anything is lucky to stay intact.

a reply to: mysterioustranger

The Sitchin books were so off at 1st, and based on his 12th Planet assumptions...that now some 40+ years later....they are proving correct in his assumptions ...

Good thread. Thnx!😎✌️