Planetary Migration in the early Solar System

..... and also proof we landed on the Moon


Watched a National Geographic documentary about the solar system the other night and had not previously know of this new theory which explains many of the peculiarities of the solar system.

There are a number of mysteries to be solved including: why do some planets have odd orbits indicative of some cataclysmic event in the past? How did the Asteroid Belt and Kuiper Belt form? How did Uranus and Neptune form so far from the Sun? Why do lunar rocks indicate that most craters formed during one brief period in the Moon's early history*?

The answers would seem to be here:

Origin of the cataclysmic Late Heavy Bombardment
period of the terrestrial planets

R. Gomes, H. F. Levison, K. Tsiganis & A. Morbidelli

The petrology record on the Moon suggests that a cataclysmic
spike in the cratering rate occurred ,700 million years after the
planets formed1; this event is known as the Late Heavy Bombardment
(LHB). Planetary formation theories cannot naturally
account for an intense period of planetesimal bombardment so
late in Solar System history. Several models have been proposed
to explain a late impact spike, but none of them has been set
within a self-consistent framework of Solar System evolution.
Here we propose that the LHB was triggered by the rapid
migration of the giant planets, which occurred after a long
quiescent period. During this burst of migration, the planetesimal
disk outside the orbits of the planets was destabilized, causing a
sudden massive delivery of planetesimals to the inner Solar
System. The asteroid belt was also strongly perturbed, with
these objects supplying a significant fraction of the LHB impactors
in accordance with recent geochemical evidence. Our model
not only naturally explains the LHB, but also reproduces the
observational constraints of the outer Solar System.

www.nature.com...


It seems to me that this latest theory deserves to be much more widely known since amongst other things it debunks (or, rather, provides a more logical and scientific alternative explanation) many of the more outlandish theories such as those proposed by Sitchin and Velikovsky and still believed and/or adapted by many people today.




*Since the results of studying these rocks strongly conflicted with prevailing views on the Moon, it's pretty conclusive that they are genuine and therefore someone must have been to the Moon to get them You don't fake something that disproves existing paradigms!

There's also a host of relevant papers listed here

www.boulder.swri.edu...

Which I've not yet had the chance to read all through!

I've just recently begun to look into the Planet X theory, so I'm no expert. However, I'm not sure I see where this article is linked to it. There seems to be good evidence now that there were at least two huge impacts in our history, both of which caused mass extinction events. There also seems to be good evidence of some sort of cataclysm that happened around 11,500 years ago, but I'm still unsure at this point whether it's related to one of these impact or not. There are also flood myths from all over the world, and it's clear now to me that we've lost a great deal of useful knowledge that humans apparently once had access to.

I also have to wonder why giant planets would experience a "rapid migration." Maybe I'm missing something here?