Was The Asteroid Belt a planet???

So your contention is that all planets must have moons. Why? And therefore your deduction is that since both Venus and Mercury don't have moons, Mercury being much smaller, had to have been a moon orbiting Venus.

What if I say that Venus was never a planet of the Solar System, but, as Veliskovsky contends, a comet that intruded into it and got caught in the gravitational pull of the Sun to become a 'planet'? It's a theory too and connot just be discounted as hogwash.
After all. who knows for certain how the Solar System, as we know it today, was formed?

Originally posted by LordOfBunnies
I'm sorry guys... no. These things don't follow with respect to the laws of conservation of energy and momentum.

Why is the conservation of energy 'law' the first thing people name when they hate a certain idea?

If something were orbiting at the asteroid belt, it would have to lose a HUGE, almost unimaginable amount of energy.

Who's imagination are we talking about here?

I guess since its orbital mechanics, the energy is calculated as negative (convention) so it would have to gain energy.

Feel free to explain the logic involved.

These theories don't hold up to scrutiny. If Mars were a moon of a destroyed planet, then it would still be orbiting there.

Why?

The Kuiper belt is leftover objects from when the solar system formed.

So it is claimed but have they explained why the Kuiper belt objects consists of what it seem to?

The Oort cloud is the same way. If you notice, all major KBO's (like Pluto) have screwy orbits.

One would imagine that these orbits would have smoothed out in the last few billion years if that was really how those objects formed?

Solar wobble can smooth out or disturb orbits, so you look at Mercury with its parahelion shift and all that fun stuff. Mars, you have Jupiter screwing with it.

All things that would be smoothed out over time if there was no major events to disturb the orbits.

Stellar

Why is the conservation of energy 'law' the first thing people name when they hate a certain idea?

That would be because everything we've observed in the universe follows this principle. We haven't been able to build anything that proves otherwise. No I don't want to start this friggin' debate again.

Who's imagination are we talking about here?

I just calculated the energy of Mars at its orbit at -1.866*10^32 J (see orbital energy convention). Even a small fraction of that would be insane to try to propulse to that energy. At 100% energy conversion, if the energy change was .000001 of that number, the necessary amount of anti-matter would be on the order of 2.072 million tons.

Feel free to explain the logic involved.

Ya know, you've got me there. I have no idea why the energy is calculated with the potential energy being subtracted from the kinetic. It means a parabolic orbit has 0 energy, maybe it's just to make the numbers pretty, I honestly have no idea why the convention is followed. The best reference for this may be the Principia Mathematica Philosiphae Naturalis... Sir Isaac Newton.

Why?

Because it doesn't have a propulsive device imbedded in it. It would need to change its energy state almost an insane amount.

So it is claimed but have they explained why the Kuiper belt objects consists of what it seem to?

Huh? What does it seem to consist of that's so weird?

One would imagine that these orbits would have smoothed out in the last few billion years if that was really how those objects formed?

The sun's influence is exceedingly weak at this point. Impacts may also help to change the orbits, but it's not a well known section of the solar system.

All things that would be smoothed out over time if there was no major events to disturb the orbits.

Um do you mean solar wobble? If it were not for solar wobble they would never smooth out because no real force would be exerted to cause them to smooth out. Actually they'd probably become more eccentric because of the outer planets and inner ones pulling on them (especially jupiter).

I'm open to theories, but some scientific basis is good to have when starting them.

[edit on 9-10-2006 by LordOfBunnies]

Ok, current theory on the moons origins is that a Mars sized something banged into the Earth several Billions of years ago and knocked apiece of the Earth into a stable orbit and the earth healed itself back into a seemless mass. But I am not supposed to think that an asteroid belt could have been created from a destroyed planet.
Come on there is just as much "proof" for one as there is the other.

Originally posted by LordOfBunnies
That would be because everything we've observed in the universe follows this principle.

Actually I'm not all that sure everything does but i have no major objection to this 'law' beside people seemingly throwing it around to try prove unrelated points. :0 I am a bit touchy on that one so excuse me...

We haven't been able to build anything that proves otherwise. No I don't want to start this friggin' debate again.

Neither do i honestly!

I just calculated the energy of Mars at its orbit at -1.866*10^32 J (see orbital energy convention). Even a small fraction of that would be insane to try to propulse to that energy. At 100% energy conversion, if the energy change was .000001 of that number, the necessary amount of anti-matter would be on the order of 2.072 million tons.

I don't understand why you are doing math here. I am suggesting that the asteroid belt is the remains of at least one former planet that exploded and that Mars used to be it's satellite. In fact it's really not my claims and here is the qualified person who i believe originally came up with them.

www.metaresearch.org...

www.metaresearch.org...

I honestly have no idea why the convention is followed. The best reference for this may be the Principia Mathematica Philosiphae Naturalis... Sir Isaac Newton.

While i was originally busy investigating so many of the things i used to believe i normally came to realise that on careful investigation there was no good reason to have believed it in the first place! Who of us cared WHAT we learned back in high school anyways/tech/uni anyways; the important thing was being able to pass exams and make a living . I am not sure how orbital mechanics but one assumes that the relative loss of cohesion and mass might very well contribute to the orbital decay of the remaining mass?

Because it doesn't have a propulsive device imbedded in it. It would need to change its energy state almost an insane amount.

How much momentum would be imparted on a moon if the planet it orbits explodes? Would it be slung from the orbit and where will it end up ? Not sure but i don't think it's likely that it will remain in exactly the same orbit as the parent planet if for no reason other than the new gravitational forces by the remaining planets.

# 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...

Huh? What does it seem to consist of that's so weird?

www.metaresearch.org...

Beach sand, water and such odd stuff.

The sun's influence is exceedingly weak at this point. Impacts may also help to change the orbits, but it's not a well known section of the solar system.

The sun is not the only gravitational force at that distance you know. Considering the size of the objects and the relative space between them we need a alternative theory as our current solar formation model does not allow for such:

Missing mass dilemma

The total mass of Kuiper Belt objects can be inferred by models of the origin of the Solar System from the known mass of the planets and known distribution of mass closer to the Sun. While the estimates are model-dependent, the total mass of around 30 MEarth is expected. Surprisingly, the actual distribution appears to be well below that value, even accounting for the observational bias. The observed density is at least 100 times smaller [5]than the model calls for. This missing 99% of the mass can be hardly dismissed as it is required for the accretion of bigger (>100km) objects ever taking place. At the current low density these objects simply could not be created. Moreover, the eccentricity and inclination of current orbits makes the encounters quite "violent" resulting in destruction rather than accretion. It appears that either the current residents of the Kuiper belt have been created closer to the Sun or some mechanism dispersed the original mass. Neptune’s influence is too weak to explain such a massive "vacuuming". While the question remains open, the conjectures[6] vary from a passing star scenario to grinding of smaller objects, via collisions, into dust small enough to be affected by Solar radiation.

en.wikipedia.org...

Um do you mean solar wobble? If it were not for solar wobble they would never smooth out because no real force would be exerted to cause them to smooth out. Actually they'd probably become more eccentric because of the outer planets and inner ones pulling on them (especially jupiter).

Well here is where i am coming from...

Dark Matter, …, we described evidence indicating that Pluto & Charon and the disruption of Neptune’s satellite system may have resulted from a past encounter with "Planet X". But in that study, the late Robert Harrington and I did not investigate the effect such an encounter might have had on any natural rings around Neptune at the time. However, since rings are made up of individual bodies that behave dynamically like individual satellites, it seems clear that a Neptunian ring could have met the same fate as other Neptunian moons – being stripped away from Neptune into an independent solar orbit that remains Neptune-crossing. Such is the present condition for the solar orbit of Pluto and its large moon Charon.

The principal arguments against this are the size of the trans-Neptunian objects (too large to be ring pieces), the implied size of the parent body (much larger than any existing Neptunian moon), and weak evidence for some low-eccentricity TNOs that do not come close to crossing Neptune’s orbit and therefore could not have originated in this way.

But whatever the origin of the curious new objects, they occupy a volume of space so vast that all the 200,000,000,000 stars in our galaxy could fit within that volume without touching! This means that the rate of collisions of smaller bodies with the larger TNOs is so small that origin by accretion is ruled out for a belt with present densities. It therefore may be concluded with certainty that something fundamental is missing in conventional models suggesting accretion of these objects from a primeval solar nebula. [AJ 110, 856-868 (1995).]

www.metaresearch.org...

I'm open to theories, but some scientific basis is good to have when starting them.

Well i hope this provides you with some ideas as to the foundation of my own ideas. :0

Stellar

These details from the Haggada about changes in the celestial bodies are very interesting.

www.sacred-texts.com...

The Legends of the Jews- by Lewis Ginzburg

Chapter IV:Noah

The Flood

"The flood was produced by a union of the male waters, which are above the firmament, and the female waters issuing from the earth. The upper waters rushed through the space left when God removed two stars out of the constellation Pleiades. Afterward, to put a stop to the flood, God had to transfer two stars from the constellation of the Bear to the constellation of the Pleiades. That is why the Bear runs after the Pleiades. She wants her two children back, but they will be restored to her only in the future world.

There were other changes among the celestial spheres during the year of the flood. All the time it lasted, the sun and the moon shed no light, whence Noah was called by his name, "the resting one," for in his life the sun and the moon rested."

It is apparent that the Hebrew legends and the Christian New Testament, specifically the Gospels and 2 Peter, are hinting about changes the heavenly bodies have been through and futures ones to come.

Is there more than meets the eye in Jewish legends?

[edit on 10-10-2006 by lostinspace]

[edit on 10-10-2006 by lostinspace]

Actually I'm not all that sure everything does but i have no major objection to this 'law' beside people seemingly throwing it around to try prove unrelated points. :0 I am a bit touchy on that one so excuse me...

Well, at this point, the conservation of energy is the most significant principle. It's thrown around so much by people because a lot of things get derived using it's principles. There are a few major principles which are used all the time in orbital mechanics: Conservation of Specific Energy (Energy/mass), Conservation of Angular Momentum, some basic newtonian mechanics (general relativity only needs to be used in the case of Mercury where it has a perehelion shift), and Conservation of Momentum. There may be more, I just can't think of them off the top of my head.

Neither do i honestly!

I'll keep going with this debate if we can agree to keep things civil. I've got the orbital mechanics background to be able to do things with that. Last time it basically turned into a pissing contest of whose base assumptions were more correct. At this point I'm operating with those stated above.

I don't understand why you are doing math here.

I am suggesting that the asteroid belt is the remains of at least one former planet that exploded and that Mars used to be it's satellite. In fact it's really not my claims and here is the qualified person who i believe originally came up with them.

I was doing math to show that it would actually require work by little green men to change the orbit. To go from a higher orbit to a lower orbit you'd have to lose energy which would need to come from somewhere. You had a point later, I'll discuss it there. I'll also try to get my simulator working because I think I've found the problem with it, it's always bad to be off by a factor of 10^9 (the units in question are km^3/s^2 and m^3/s^2).

While i was originally busy investigating so many of the things i used to believe i normally came to realise that on careful investigation there was no good reason to have believed it in the first place! Who of us cared WHAT we learned back in high school anyways/tech/uni anyways; the important thing was being able to pass exams and make a living .

I am not sure how orbital mechanics but one assumes that the relative loss of cohesion and mass might very well contribute to the orbital decay of the remaining mass?

Going with the assumptions above, it would need to eject something to do that. A lot of the things you and your sources state may have been possible during the solar system's formation or shortly after that time. The possibility I was thinking of was a lot of these things happened during formation and the planet you're talking about could have ejected Mars (like the theory for the moon). That could allow for enough energy change that it would be possible. With the planetoids theory of early solar system formation, many things like this are possible. But, at the moment, there's not enough mass in the asteroid belt to actually form a planet, maybe Jupiter could have gotten hold of it and flung it out of the system, but the possibilities are open.

How much momentum would be imparted on a moon if the planet it orbits explodes? Would it be slung from the orbit and where will it end up ? Not sure but i don't think it's likely that it will remain in exactly the same orbit as the parent planet if for no reason other than the new gravitational forces by the remaining planets.

You're right here, we'd need to make a few assumptions for solving that problem, like instant destruction of the planet. Once that happens you can shift your coordinate system to the sun and find your velocity with respect to that. As I said, I'm going to try to work with my simulator again. With something the size of Mars, I would get it would orbit at about 2 kps so the ideal situation for this would mean, Asteroid V - 2= Va.out of words.

Originally posted by mikesingh
I strongly feel that the Asteroid Belt was a planet having a very advanced civilization which blew up due to some experiment which went awry.

...Now some will say, prove it. I can't, though I wish I could. But can someone prove that the universe started with the Big Bang? So all is theory and conjecture. We don't even know how the moon got here!

VERY good thinking! Excellent!

Absolutely perfect for ATS' section on Ancient and Lost Civilizations - and obviously, up to ATS' rigorous standards for acedemia and scholarship.

IMO - your argument that the Asteroid Belt was a planet having a very advanced civilization, constitutes far, FAR more substantial evidence of an ancient and lost civilization than for example, the fact that the I Ching is based on a binary numerical system, and contains a calendar similar to the Mayan calendar.


Keep up the good work.

A most entertaining, most endarkening thread, by all means keep it going. As you struggle to make yourselves understood by the unwashed hordes, bear in mind how difficult it would be to relate a truely alien tale.

I know another story about the destruction of this particular planet.

There was once superior beings living on our planet ages ago. They were attracted to our simple ways and we were easy to influence and dominate. These beings ruled over the earth as kings and no one could challenge their power. They would kill any who rebelled against them. These beings could come and go from earth at will. It was unclear as to where they would go, but they would always come back to earth because of the pleasure of being worshipped.
Then after about a thousand years, from the start of their reign, their enemy was roused to action. For some reason the planet between the Red World and the Green World began to become unstable and the superior beings were alerted to this alarming news. They new its destruction would definitely endanger the fragle earth. The majority of them left the earth to remedy the cause of this particular planet's trouble. The planet was becoming cracked and fissured all around the entire globe. They attempted to fuse the world back together with their gifted abilities, but after a short time their enemies came to meet them in battle. The repair was put to a stop because the battle was tough. Eventually the enemy used a secret weapon which incapacitated all those trying to repair the planet. The planet became unstable once again and after an unspecified time shattered to pieces...

Originally posted by LordOfBunnies
Well, at this point, the conservation of energy is the most significant principle. It's thrown around so much by people because a lot of things get derived using it's principles.

Well there are those who hate the whole notion of cheap energy and human progress and they are the types that are fanatical when it comes to the 'conservation of energy' laws and how we can't get a better deal on planet Earth.

There are a few major principles which are used all the time in orbital mechanics: Conservation of Specific Energy (Energy/mass), Conservation of Angular Momentum, some basic newtonian mechanics (general relativity only needs to be used in the case of Mercury where it has a perehelion shift), and Conservation of Momentum. There may be more, I just can't think of them off the top of my head.

All well and good and since Tom van Flandern is a educated person one assumes he took these into account, right?

I'll keep going with this debate if we can agree to keep things civil. I've got the orbital mechanics background to be able to do things with that. Last time it basically turned into a pissing contest of whose base assumptions were more correct. At this point I'm operating with those stated above.

No reason not to stay civil imo. Base assumptions are absolutely great until you decide that they are the final theories that will not be refined and can not be changed. The moment i run into people who think ( and their always thinking that no matter how often their wrong) that this is it as far as our understanding of a specific phenomenon goes i get screaming mad as the arrogance assumed in such statements just stuns me. As long as we work with commonly assumed principles but take into account the inherent contradictions in most of them we can have a civil and very instructive discussion....

I was doing math to show that it would actually require work by little green men to change the orbit. To go from a higher orbit to a lower orbit you'd have to lose energy which would need to come from somewhere.

So for entropy needs a energy source? This is a pretty strange conclusion imo and i do not understand why you think a planetary explosion can not change the orbits of it's satellites by mass or energy exchange. Do you realise that almost an entire Martian hemispheres seems to have a crustal thickness much thicker than the previous norm and that we know this took place fairly recently due to the relative impact counts we observe?

You had a point later, I'll discuss it there. I'll also try to get my simulator working because I think I've found the problem with it, it's always bad to be off by a factor of 10^9 (the units in question are km^3/s^2 and m^3/s^2).

Sounds like you should not yet involve yourself in cosmic engineering.

Going with the assumptions above, it would need to eject something to do that. A lot of the things you and your sources state may have been possible during the solar system's formation or shortly after that time.

I think it can be proved that these things were still happening millions or hundreds of thousands of years ago...

The possibility I was thinking of was a lot of these things happened during formation and the planet you're talking about could have ejected Mars (like the theory for the moon). That could allow for enough energy change that it would be possible.

Have you looked at Van Flanderns ideas for solar formation as it's certainly NOT conventional?

With the planetoids theory of early solar system formation, many things like this are possible. But, at the moment, there's not enough mass in the asteroid belt to actually form a planet, maybe Jupiter could have gotten hold of it and flung it out of the system, but the possibilities are open.

As he said 99% of a planetary mass would simply evaporate as it's only gravity that kept it together. According to his theory what we observe as the asteroid belt are the crustal remains of the planets surface.

You're right here, we'd need to make a few assumptions for solving that problem, like instant destruction of the planet. Once that happens you can shift your coordinate system to the sun and find your velocity with respect to that.

Four factors that i think would have played a significant part in the orbital change and or velocity decay...

1. Matter being ejected from exploding body impacting on orbiting moon..
2. Loss of gravitational 'well'
3. New gravitational effects of sun and other solar bodies...
4. Blast wave of exploding body...

I think their in about the right order in terms of immediacy of the effect...

As I said, I'm going to try to work with my simulator again. With something the size of Mars, I would get it would orbit at about 2 kps so the ideal situation for this would mean, Asteroid V - 2= Va.out of words.

If you say so.

Stellar

..if Mars is a former moon, we are now TWO planets short, not just one? Of course, that's without taking a close look at Mercury, which sports an eccentric orbit and considerable asymmetry (usually attributed to an impact, though).

I have been recently researching the works of Michael Tsarion of late, and his ideas are a possible answer to this mystery.

He suggests that the asteroid belt is made up of the remains of Tiamat, which was an absolutely huge water planet around 10 times the size of Earth, which incidently he says was the famous 'Second Sun' - as it was made up primarily of water, it reflected all of the Sun's light.

Now what Tsarion puts forward is that the 'Fallen Angels' descended on Earth after being chased out of their habitat, however, they left a decoy on Tiamat and when the life chasing them got there they blew the Planet up, as it wasn't inhabited, or at least only by the 'Fallen Angels' so they thought.

Then the 'Fallen Angels' set up base on Earth and essentially now we are all products of their's and are governed by them.

The story is a lot longer with a lot more detail, I would suggest that everybody looks up the work of Micheal Tsarion.

Ok I am a believer in this theory just because I believe that there was a planet there. My hipothosis is that a rogue planetoid/asteroid/comet with a great huge amount of momentum (I am talking speed to mass ratio here.) came into contact with the trailing side of the 5th planet. Kind of like hitting a billiard ball with a shotgun slug. Now what would you get? not a lot of debris left over and what was left over would continue allong the same trajectory. The bulk of the planet that was destroyed would sail off in the direction equil to the rogue body. The theory that jupiter's gravity well allong with mars riped apart the proto planet in the formation stage doesnt hold water because jupiter has a ton of moons orbiting arround it and mars doesnt have that much gravity. Besides they would have had to be in perfect allinment for both gravity wells to shred the proto planet.


So my theory in a nutshell is that planet 5 got cosmicly sucker punched.

Michael Tsarion wouldn't know a real fact if it walked up and kicked him in the ass
Tiamat was not ever a planet
he stole that idea from Sitchin who also got it wrong
if you're going to vote for these kind of cranks guys at least try to go for an original one who sounds credible.
someone posted an entire thread dedicated to Tsarions ideas before
www.abovetopsecret.com...
it lasted precisely three posts

Thank you for the advice. I admit I've never been to 'space' so as far as I'm concerned lots of things might or might not exist, it's all open to debate. I found his story plausible as I'm sure I could find a story you told me plausible. If the story made no mention of the Planet's name, in Tsarion's view, Tiamat, but remained the same would you treat it with any validity ?

The answer is yes.

Recharge, anyone?



en.wikipedia.org...

The asteroid belt failed to solidify into a planet billions of years ago because the soil was just not right for germination, so to speak.

Or

A planet between Mars and Jupiter exploded sometime in man’s ancient history.

Originally posted by lostinspace

A planet between Mars and Jupiter exploded sometime in man’s ancient history.

So how did the remains develop their orbit and become rotund in such a short time If there was a planet, it broke up billions of years ago.

Originally posted by Essan

Originally posted by lostinspace

A planet between Mars and Jupiter exploded sometime in man’s ancient history.

So how did the remains develop their orbit and become rotund in such a short time

Cosmic pinball might best describe the quick dispersal of asteroids. I imagine that the core of the large planet collapsed and a cascading effect pulled the outer body inwards. As it was being ripped apart chunks of the hot mantle would’ve collided with each other from opposite sides of the planetary body. With all the pieces flying into each other there would have been multiple collisions causing asteroids to appear all over the belt. Various sections within the asteroid belt have congregated groups of asteroids, which might suggest these areas had larger pieces of the planet at one time.



Here is a good site discussing the planetary explosion hypothesis.

metaresearch.org...

This man had an interesting theory on these, which he claimed to have basis as written in ancient Sumerian literatures. Shame though that his books only published in French at the moment.

As you can see on the previous picture, there was a planet located between the planet Mars and Jupiter. Venus, according to him, were this planet's satellite.

The progenitors of Venus all incarnate a being sacrificed in connection with the world of the dead. This is true in all traditions including those of Central America and Scandinavia.

They are also often associated with war or a particular conflict, as with Ištar, Athena, Horus, Parashu-Râma, Lucifer.

Greek:

The Hellenic form of the Babylonian Ištar (Venus) is Athena who springs, "fully-armed", from the brow of Zeus (Jupiter).

The planet just before Jupiter (i.e., its "head") was the "black star" Mulge, which ejected Venus from its original position as the satellite of the exploded Mulge.

In Isis and Osiris, Plutarch cites Manethon's claim that the name "Athena" in Greek evokes "a spontaneous movement". Now please have a look in the Decoder at the translations of the Sumero-Akkadian transpositions of "Athena".

The singular story of the head giving birth to a warrior goddess is repeated in Indian mythology with the Goddess Kali in the Devi Mahatmyam. Parks particularly calls attention to chapters 7.8 and 9.22, which we'll leave for you to view on that page.

I dunno if this is plausible, but it's quite interesting, to say the least. Check the specific link here: www.zeitlin.net...

Basically he connects this with the origins of human, numerous ancient myths and literatures, and eventually, religions, based on his study on the linguistic aspect.

Thoughts?

(For more quoted materials from his book, refer to this link: www.zeitlin.net...)