Was The Asteroid Belt a planet???

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 10:20 AM
link   
That's an interesting theory. Didn't think of this one! But what really could have happened if Mars was a moon of the destroyed planet?

Now here is where the maths whizkids come in! Imagine a moon suddenly becoming an 'orphan'.

How would its orbit be affected? Would it be pulled by the Sun's gravity to become a planet (Mars) or slide into an orbit around Jupiter which would have had a greater gravitational pull than the Sun, at that distance?

If the latter is true then Mars could not have been the Moon of Planet 'X' as it revolves around the sun.

But, hell, this requires a Cray supercomputer to sort out, as it involves complex celestial mechanics. My head turns to toast even thinking of it!!




posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 12:01 PM
link   
I think that the position of the satellite when it becomes "orphan" is important, was it is going in direction of the Sun or was it going in the direction of Jupiter?

Also, Jupiter could be farther away than the Sun, the planets orbit the Sun at different velocities, so Jupiter could be close or on the other side of the solar system, at that moment.



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikesingh
It's not because of the centrifugal force in the Solar System that gas giants formed.


Planets may in fact form in a quite different manner according to Tom Van Flandern and others...

www.metaresearch.org...


So the Asteroid belt wasn't a gas planet after all !!


According to the theory proposed earlier it would not have been a gas planet as those pretty much 'evaporate'.


Give the article a read a tell me what you think! Check out Tom's credentials...

Stellar



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 08:16 PM
link   
I think i may have explained what i meant badly. It is not the same as centrifugal force, if anything its the opposite, because gravity pulls matter towards the centre of the solar system. The centrifuge was a poor example. Anyway, what i meant was that the heaviest matter is most effected by gravity which is why the inner planets are solid, whilst the outer planets are gas giants, I believe jupiter is theorised to have a solid core, so fits somewhere in-between. Another interesting thing, I have flicked through several posts talking about there once being an atmosphere on mars, or establishing one in the future. But according to my Geochemistry tutor (who often works on a board of government advisers) at a leading university, this is not possible. This is because mars is to small, and therefore has insufficient gravity to support anything other than a very weak atmosphere. The majority of gases simply break away from mars's gravitation pull and float of into space. It is possible that mars could have supported an atmosphere, but become smaller due to a large impact. However we see no signs for this today, so the planet would have had to be molten if it happened, so therefore it would have been inhospitable to life anyway.

My posts tend to be a bit muddled, I am dyslexic and not very good at organising thoughts. If any of this is unclear, please let me know, it is all of great interest to me and i touch on some of it in my studies.



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 05:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by scepticsteve This is because mars is to small, and therefore has insufficient gravity to support anything other than a very weak atmosphere. The majority of gases simply break away from mars's gravitation pull and float of into space.

I think that the idea is that Mars had an atmosphere because it was more active, and the loss of atmosphere was compensated by the vulcanic and/or other planetary or biological activity.



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 06:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

www.metaresearch.org...

Give the article a read a tell me what you think! Check out Tom's credentials...

Stellar


Stellar, that was amazing stuff!!


But unfortunately it dosen't say much about how the planet exploded. Probably due to fusion? But did it occur naturally or otherwise? That's the question.

And I've always wondered how planets rotate. And all in one direction except for venus. But that's another story!!



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 07:07 AM
link   
Conservation of Angular Momentum, it's assumed that the dust cloud the system formed out of was rotating and to conserve AM the system had to keep rotating.

Mars couldn't have been a moon, the size of the planet would have been abso-frigging-lutely huge in order to keep that as a moon. There's more evidence, without some serious, planet cracking impacts, the moon would have too much energy to be where it currently lies in the solar system. Depending on the direction of its flight when it would have broken away, it should have a very different orbit. I doubt solar and jovian wobble could stabilize a planetary orbit like that. Anyway it would have stabilized a bit farther out than it did.

When it broke away it would have been on a highly elliptical orbit around the sun. The apoapsis would like be where the asteroid belt is now with the perigee somewhere closer to its orbit or our own. If anyone wants I can run some calculations to see just where it would end up (after my homework stops kicking my ass).



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by LordOfBunnies

If anyone wants I can run some calculations to see just where it would end up (after my homework stops kicking my ass).


Good idea. Now could you do your darned homework some other time and get down to some serious business of calculating the orbital path?
You're goin' to provide a diagram of course.

And about rotation. What happened to Venus? It spins in the wrong direction. Anyway, we could discuss this in another thread.




[edit on 30-8-2006 by mikesingh]



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 11:28 AM
link   
No offence, but i dont think that planetary calculations are as easy as you make out, I dont think i could do it, and the fact your in the middle of your homework suggests your not stephen hawking.

But mabye your just a maths genious, and i should shut up.



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Good idea. Now could you do your darned homework some other time and get down to some serious business of calculating the orbital path? You're goin' to provide a diagram of course.

And about rotation. What happened to Venus? It spins in the wrong direction. Anyway, we could discuss this in another thread.

Yeah, when I stop being mad at MATLAB (probably tomorrow) I'll get down to that. I've already got several programs to do the calculations they just require a modification. Now I have no idea why the planets spin in the wrong direction or why some moons have retrograde orbits. I do some orbital mechanics, that's more for an astronomer or astrophysicist.


Originally posted by scepticsteve
No offence, but i dont think that planetary calculations are as easy as you make out, I dont think i could do it, and the fact your in the middle of your homework suggests your not stephen hawking.

But mabye your just a maths genious, and i should shut up.

Actually the equations are really easy. At least for the one's I'd be doing. There's no reason to reach for the super computer because the necessary information can be determined with a low end calculations. The parameter of interest is actually the specific energy of the planet (energy divided by mass). The planet has no way to lose energy short of being hit by a planet cracking impact or a few thousand of them. If the energy is too high even after solar and jovian wobble would round out the orbit.

Just some information, I'm a senior in the School of Aeronautics and Astronautics at Purdue University. I taught myself some higher level orbital mechanics this summer working on my research. When I post the results I'll post some books that I used as references.


What I'm going to look at is the ideal case of the Mars orbiting something. That basically means that I'm going to assume the planet is going is moving in the direction opposed to the planetary motion when the planet *blips* out of existence. Mars would then orbit the sun with that point as its apoapsis, or point furthest away. That would be the minimum energy case or the check case. I'd then check the circular radius for that amount of energy and compare that to what Mars actually is. Pretty simple analysis.

Random other thing for you people to rack your brains over. Alright Mars was always were it was, but the asteroid was a planet. It had a moon that was ejected after the planet did something (went boom?). That hit earth while it was still molten and broke off the moon from that. I know there's an impact theory for the formation of the moon. There ya go.



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 10:56 PM
link   
Well what can I say. I am definitely out of my field here. Hard to argue with you. "The worst theory you have ever heard"???? Really????? Only thing I have is some simple logic here as like I say I'm out of my field. And I was after all throwing the statement out just to see what other more knowledgeable people might say. But wow, the worst theory ever heard. It would be a nice experiment to try to do in a lab. I just don't see how molten rock coming up out of the interior of a planet has anything at all to do with water been forced somehow deep into a planet (whether or not it is possible with our science) is a similar comparison. In other words, I just don't see how your statement about what happens when molten rock being shoved up into an ocean where there is no force exerted upon it and it can pretty much do anything it wants is comparable to water being shoved into a place where there is no room. The better analogy might be like a balloon that would represent the earth. You keep blowing air into the balloon and unless it finds some faults that it can escape through quickly it is going to blow that balloon up. But then again, I'm just trying to use logic and I don't have friends who do consulting work for the government.




Originally posted by scepticsteve
The idea that a planet could be distroyed by water going down a volcano and breaking it apart is possibly the worst theory ive ever heard. I know when hot glass of even small rocks meet water they may crack, or shatter. But Volcanoes erupt on the sea floor all the time, particularly at the mid atlantic ridge where there is a divergent boandary, molten rock simply pours out and solidifies at the surface. Water is forced into the earth constantly at convergant boundaries where oceanic and continental crust meets, all it does is decrease the pressure and allow the crust to melt more easily.



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by grasshopper

Well what can I say. I am definitely out of my field here. Hard to argue with you. "The worst theory you have ever heard"???? Really????? Only thing I have is some simple logic here as like I say I'm out of my field. And I was after all throwing the statement out just to see what other more knowledgeable people might say. But wow, the worst theory ever heard. It would be a nice experiment to try to do in a lab. I just don't see how molten rock coming up out of the interior of a planet has anything at all to do with water been forced somehow deep into a planet (whether or not it is possible with our science) is a similar comparison. In other words, I just don't see how your statement about what happens when molten rock being shoved up into an ocean where there is no force exerted upon it and it can pretty much do anything it wants is comparable to water being shoved into a place where there is no room. The better analogy might be like a balloon that would represent the earth. You keep blowing air into the balloon and unless it finds some faults that it can escape through quickly it is going to blow that balloon up. But then again, I'm just trying to use logic and I don't have friends who do consulting work for the government.




Originally posted by scepticsteve
The idea that a planet could be distroyed by water going down a volcano and breaking it apart is possibly the worst theory ive ever heard. I know when hot glass of even small rocks meet water they may crack, or shatter. But Volcanoes erupt on the sea floor all the time, particularly at the mid atlantic ridge where there is a divergent boandary, molten rock simply pours out and solidifies at the surface. Water is forced into the earth constantly at convergant boundaries where oceanic and continental crust meets, all it does is decrease the pressure and allow the crust to melt more easily.




I hang up my geological hat (its a nice hat by the way), clearly all we need to destroy a planet is loads of water and a giant plunger!

Your exhibiting no shred of logic, the earth is not a giant balloon, I am bewildered to see how you can even find the tiniest of links between them.



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikesingh
That's an interesting theory. Didn't think of this one! But what really could have happened if Mars was a moon of the destroyed planet?


Well, then there'd be a lot more cratering on the surface of Mars than there already is. The destruction of a planet would cause a vast amount of damage to any moons it had in orbit.



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkmind
Well, then there'd be a lot more cratering on the surface of Mars than there already is. The destruction of a planet would cause a vast amount of damage to any moons it had in orbit.


Actually we have good evidence for massive catastrophes happening in our solar system as the geological record on both Earth and at least Mars indicates.


Evidence that Mars is a former moon

* Mars is much less massive than any planet not itself suspected of being a former moon
* Orbit of Mars is more elliptical than for any larger-mass planet
* Spin is slower than larger planets, except where a massive moon has intervened
* Large offset of center of figure from center of mass
* Shape not in equilibrium with spin
* Southern hemisphere is saturated with craters, the northern has sparse cratering
* The “crustal dichotomy” boundary is nearly a great circle
* North hemisphere has a smooth, 1-km-thick crust; south crust is over 20-km thick
* Crustal thickness in south decreases gradually toward hemisphere edges
* Lobate scarps occur near hemisphere divide, compressed perpendicular to boundary
* Huge volcanoes arose where uplift pressure from mass redistribution is maximal
* A sudden geographic pole shift of order 90° occurred
* Much of the original atmosphere has been lost
* A sudden, massive flood with no obvious source occurred
* Xe129, a fission product of massive explosions, has an excess abundance on Mars

www.metaresearch.org...


Read the entire paper to get a better understanding of what is being proposed.

Thanks; i hope.

Stellar



posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 05:56 AM
link   
Stellar,
That was very informative.

But let's assume that Mars was not a moon. Someone said on another thread that Atlanteans were probably inhabitants from Mars. Then, could the early Martians [a planet of war] have gone to war with the planet that became the Asteroid belt? Did the 'Martians' blow it up? Is what we found in the gap, the aftermath of a great war of the planets? The point here is: What we take for granted as natural...might not be.

Prehistoric space wars or acts of alien armies could have left the Solar System in its present state with the enigma of the Asteroid belt.

[edit on 2-9-2006 by mikesingh]



posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by scepticsteve




I hang up my geological hat (its a nice hat by the way), clearly all we need to destroy a planet is loads of water and a giant plunger!

Your exhibiting no shred of logic, the earth is not a giant balloon, I am bewildered to see how you can even find the tiniest of links between them.


I doubt it would be a giant plunger. But the technology would have had to have been way beyong anything that we have now. Probably at least thousands of years ahead of anything we have now. It takes quite an imagination. But to me it is not ridiculous to imagine such a thing to be real. To me it is not illogical at all to imagine that such a thing might be possible. It would be illogical to imagine that something would be possible with our understanding of physics and our current technology. It is illogical to you and your mind and ego which seem to be very big.

No analogy is perfect. To point out that the earth is not a balloon is merely stating the obvious. Don't expect too much off the top of my head. I don't have text book verses that I can fall back upon and quote from as I'm sure you do. You've probably read a lot better analogies. Planets are not like ballons but they can probably be blown apart from within. I am not Michael Horn and I'm not here to defend the Pleadians and their words. But I am not hearing anything that refutes their theory. I'm just hearing put downs and cut downs of myself. If there is something illogical about such a theory then lets hear it. I've listening to many introductions of people with long lists of credentials who I'm suppose to believe are credible because of their credentials and backgrounds and who they themselves are and not just who they were tutored by. But when I listen to them speak they sound about as crdible as the loons on C2C who also have such crdentials. Talk about the theory and not just build yourself up. You are not crdible to me until you say something intelligent. So far, you haven't impressed.


[edit on 2-9-2006 by grasshopper]



posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 06:53 PM
link   
Please forgive me if i have come across as arrogant, its probably because I am. What makes you think aliens would be 1000 years more advanced than us, that is an enourmously insignificant period of time, I believe that aliens will either be millions of years more advanced or not advanced at all. And with this im sure that there are easier ways of destoying a planet than pouring water down a big hole.

If you want a better analogy, imagine a giant saucepan, heated to the point of melting, with 100 mile thick sides, and a hole in the middle, no wider than a couple of meters. What would happen If you quickly fill this hole with ice cold water? Nothing. The metal would contract slightly, if anything. Im sure you are aware that the earths core is mostly iron.

I am not trying to show off anything to you, or anyone else. What does having an inteligent and highly educated tutor say about me? Nothing, he teaches me for 3 hours a week. I was mearly trying to see what people thought about something he said.

Perhaps you should have thought for 10 seconds before comparing an pin popping a balloon, with an exploding planet. They both explode, end of analogy. I am not attacking you personally, if anything you targeted me with your indirect claims that I am being big-headed by quoting from an inteligent source, I can assure you that I will assume no such thing from you should you ever be in a similar situation. I do not want to act like I am more inteligent than the average man, however I see no harm in airing my opinions, especially in an area where I have possibly been educated more than most people. I feel sure you are more Knowledgeable than me in other areas, it simply depends on what route your life has taken. If you feel like I am being condescending perhaps it is you that needs an ego reduction.

I feel certain you will shoot me down in a dazzling display of rhetoric and I look forward to it.



posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikesingh
Stellar,
That was very informative.

But let's assume that Mars was not a moon.


That's the idea for their theory of solar formation , yes.



Someone said on another thread that Atlanteans were probably inhabitants from Mars.


Well according to Jonathan Grey Atlanteans were probably the survivors from the early cataclysms ( great flood/etc) to destroyed the advanced civilization which were responsible for most or all of the odd archeology we have found too date. The earlier cataclysm ( dated by Jonathan to about 3390 bc) could obviously have been the end result of the interplanetary war mention in mythology. Well that's at least part of what he says and there are about a dozen other theories i know of.


www.beforeus.com...


Then, could the early Martians [a planet of war] have gone to war with the planet that became the Asteroid belt? Did the 'Martians' blow it up? Is what we found in the gap, the aftermath of a great war of the planets? The point here is: What we take for granted as natural...might not be.


Very much in agreement. According to Tom van Flandern there is good date to suggest a late and great bombardment of the inner planets that remained of the original 14 planets this solar system started out with .... How many were destroyed by natural causes or interplanetary/solar war i really have no idea... Whatever the case my be his got the qualifications and it fits far better with ancient texts than anything we see in history books today.


Prehistoric space wars or acts of alien armies could have left the Solar System in its present state with the enigma of the Asteroid belt.


Nothing new under the sun imo and your guess ( if that is what it is) is as good as mine. At this stage anything goes till someone of authority and knowledge starts admitting to some of the obvious things they are keeping from us.

Stellar



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 02:50 PM
link   
quote from sceptic steve:

What makes you think aliens would be 1000 years more advanced than us, that is an enourmously insignificant period of time, I believe that aliens will either be millions of years more advanced or not advanced at all. And with this im sure that there are easier ways of destoying a planet than pouring water down a big hole.

grasshopper replies:

I would say that aliens who could blow up a planet would be more advanced than us. But who can say how much more advanced they'd be. According to what was said to Admiral Bird who ran into aliens at the north pole, they told him they were many thousands of years more advanced than us. It would seem logical to me that other aliens would be even more advanced than that and some near the same level and some even less advanced.


quote by sceptic steve:

If you want a better analogy, imagine a giant saucepan, heated to the point of melting, with 100 mile thick sides, and a hole in the middle, no wider than a couple of meters. What would happen If you quickly fill this hole with ice cold water? Nothing. The metal would contract slightly, if anything. Im sure you are aware that the earths core is mostly iron.

grasshopper replies:

That's the point you made before in response to someone's post right after my original post. I don't think he really understood what I was saying. But it was an interesting post. I wasn't thinking at all about any kind of explosion similar to throwing cold water into a hot molten core causing the core to shatter. I was thinking of the explosion that would result from the pressure build up of all that water somehow being forced down into the deep interior of the planet and not being able to exit thereby blowing the planet apart. Let me change my analogy just a little. You know what a water balloon is. Imagine instead of air being forced into the balloon to the point of it going kaboom. Imagine that we were talking about water. The water would cause the balloon to explode if you put enough in it. The water being forced into the planet might or might not cause it to expand the way the balloon does. I don't know. But if it could not escape the interior of the planet at a rate equal to the rate it was being forced down into the planet then like the ballon it would explode.

Quote from sceptic steve:

I am not trying to show off anything to you, or anyone else. What does having an inteligent and highly educated tutor say about me? Nothing, he teaches me for 3 hours a week. I was mearly trying to see what people thought about something he said.

Perhaps you should have thought for 10 seconds before comparing an pin popping a balloon, with an exploding planet.

grasshopper replies:

Now you are putting words in my mouth. I said nothing about a pin popping a balloon.

quote from sceptic steve:

They both explode, end of analogy. I am not attacking you personally, if anything you targeted me with your indirect claims that I am being big-headed by quoting from an inteligent source, I can assure you that I will assume no such thing from you should you ever be in a similar situation. I do not want to act like I am more inteligent than the average man, however I see no harm in airing my opinions, especially in an area where I have possibly been educated more than most people. I feel sure you are more Knowledgeable than me in other areas, it simply depends on what route your life has taken. If you feel like I am being condescending perhaps it is you that needs an ego reduction.

grasshopper replies:

You don't understand me at all. But that is a fair point. Could be I'm the one with the big ego.


~~~~~~~~~~~

Hope I edited the quote correctly



[edit on 3-9-2006 by masqua]



[edit on 3-9-2006 by grasshopper]



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 01:18 PM
link   
If there weren't any planetary traffic accidents, then where did the scar on mars come from? Its too large to be a natural formation.

Asteroid belt - how much matter is actually contained in the belt? Would it be enough to form the outer layers of a planet - such as if that planet were hollow to some degree or contained massive caverns? Think about it.


I read on a nasa webpage that during one of the space misssions, stages of the rocket were ejected so as to strike the moon- when they did, it rang like a bell. If this is so, then it means the moon is filled with (a) a gas, (b) a liquid, or (c) dramatically less dense (word?) than the 'moon-mantle'. How could this possibly form if it were merely knocked off the earth, as it were?





new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join