Weird Alien Planets Stuck in Backwards Orbits Explained

Venus is upside down, thought to be from a massive collision early during accretion. So two thoughts of Venus are it is upside down and rotating the same direction, or it has a slow retrograde rotation and isn't upside down. Collision is also the popular cause of Uranus getting knocked off it's kilter.

There's several other theories on what happened to Venus from it just never having a fast rotation and its atmospheric built up to that its weather patters cause it to begin to slowly rotate backwards, to Electric Universe theories, to Mercury/Venus collision that lessened Mercury's elliptical orbit to a more circular one, and all the way to Venus losing a large moon in another collision.

As far as pole shifts, one usually is referring to a magnetic pole shift, not an axial pole shift, those just don't occur (without a cataclysmic collision). Little know fact about the sun is it really has no set magnetic polar axis and its magnetic poles can fluctuate wildly in relatively short time spans, 'pointing' in nearly any direction, has nothing to do with is axial spin. The earth is believed to have had as many as 500 magnetic polar shifts, (I had a source for that, not saved, but you just don't forget something like that if you read it at a reputable site).

reply to post by iforget


The more I speculate on it the more I perceive some sort of ancient planetary collisions or massive gravitational influence a fly by of a passing object.

Originally posted by Stuffed
Planets captured by other stars wouldn't have to orbit in the same direction, hell they wouldn't even have to orbit in the same plane. but as to the chances of such an occurrence i really have no clue. What i would feel comfortable speculating on however, is that this wouldn't be much of an explanation for the phenomenon in the OP as it would only apply to a couple planets due to the infrequency of something like alien planets being captured by another star.

pretty much as I thought just trying to get some understanding thank you for the help

Rogue planet capture, who crowded is that neighborhood, or where is the next closest star?

The forming of a solar system just doesn't support a naturally retrograde orbit, its possible I guess if the elliptic is severe enough, and its orbital speed is wildly varied do to close and far distances from its star. Natural reverse orbit doesn't make sense.

reply to post by Illustronic



Excellent reply.

Thank you for the input.

I think there are several moons of the gas giants that orbit backwards, believed to be captured moons. Isn't Triton one?
Just looked, its said Triton of Neptune is the only retrograde orbiting moon in the solar system.

reply to post by SLAYER69


Thanks, cool hangout, I'm going to have to check it out sometime.

reply to post by Illustronic



So now the question then becomes why were they rogue in the first place?
Also, what are your thoughts on the origins of comets? Were they as some have speculated oceans of planets that were ripped from the surface by a gravitational pull of a larger body passing near by? Or, were the left of over of a water planet that was destroyed?

And

If so could there be in your opinion signs of extinct or remnants of life in them?

Who really knows why some of the newly discovered planets rotate backwards? Until we can get probes out to the outer reaches of the universe, all we can do is see it for what it is? Didn't NASA just complete a study that took over half a century about the Earth's own gravity and its affect on time?

Gravity Probe B confirms Einstein effects

Nasa's Gravity Probe B has produced remarkable new confirmation of some key predictions by Albert Einstein.

The satellite's observations show the massive body of the Earth is very subtly warping space and time, and even pulling them around with it.

Scientists were able to see these effects by studying the behaviour of four perfectly engineered spinning balls carried inside the probe.

To reach some of these alien planets it will take about as long as the study above or even longer. There is only so much information that can be gathered from the high power telescopes. This stuff is interesting, but any hypothesis is fair game until we can physically reach them. Keep these science threads coming. Fascinating stuff!

reply to post by Jakes51


I agree it is fascinating stuff to speculate on.
As always Jakes great addition to the thread content.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by iforget

 

The more I speculate on it the more I perceive some sort of ancient planetary collisions or massive gravitational influence a fly by of a passing object.

I have wondered about that asteroid belt,if it could be the remains
of a planet that was destroyed.Could have knocked the other planets
out of their orbits and devastated mars,pushed mercury closer to
the sun...

Here is a very quick and simple theory I have regarding planets in reverse orbit of their parent star. Instead of a second large gas giant orbiting the same star,(as theorized in the article) causing the other gas giant to flip its orbit due to gravitational perturbations; I theorize two star systems crossing paths with eachother, each with a large gas giant or brown dwarf. The orbits of the gas giants will eventually intersect, leading to the reversed orbit due in part either by gradual gravitational perturbations, or a direct impact causing the reversal.

Here are some crude illustrations to help convey my point:



As the two systems grow closer to each other, the orbit of both planets will grow closer as well, possibly intersecting (considering that both systems have to be on, or at least similar planes), leading to gravitaion forces slowing them down, and ultimately reversing the orbits, or a direct impact, reversing the orbit in one bang.






After the orbit of the planets have reversed, the original orbit of the parent star would remain the same.

Just my .02

reply to post by ZombieJesus


thanks for the idea That would be something to see wouldn't it

reply to post by iforget


See, I knew I'd missed something, ah well, just ignore my laast post then

Originally posted by mamabeth

I have wondered about that asteroid belt,if it could be the remains
of a planet that was destroyed.Could have knocked the other planets
out of their orbits and devastated mars,pushed mercury closer to
the sun...

that is a working hypothesis on the origin of the asteroid belt

reply to post by ZombieJesus


sorry I like the aids and appreciate the time spent could leave them up as an example of your own idea and not of the article?

reply to post by iforget


Actually, doubtful....

There simply isn't enough mass, there in the orbit of the Asteroid Field, to account for a previous planet.

Also, the positions and regularity of the planets' orbits are well defined, and have a relationship that has been studied. If sufficient mass had existed, in the early disc, then something larger might have accreted there...but, only what we see managed to "clump" together. Also, it is conceivable that Jupiter played a role...bad luck for whatever was in that band, that distance from the Sun, as Jupiter grew in mass, possibly "robbed" the region, and prevented the accumulation of a substantial planet......


More, current thought as of 2009:

In 1802 Heinrich Olbers theorized that the asteroid belt was formed by an ancient planet exploding. This planet having either suffered an internal explosion or a cometary impact many million years ago. The large amount of energy that would have been required to destroy a planet, combined with the belt’s low combined mass tends to destroy that theory. Today it is believed that the planets were formed by a process of accretion and the asteroid belt are just pieces that have never joined a planet.

www.universetoday.com...

reply to post by iforget


Thanks

I deleted it though, so as to not confuse people reading the thread. I do think that , (guess its my theory now) what I posted did make sense in a theoretical fashion, explaining the reversed orbit planets.

could leave them up as an example of your own idea and not of the article?

I guess I could do that

reply to post by weedwhacker


Thanks for the clarification still it's not to say that the OP of the idea in question wasn't unto a fairly reasonable line of thought shared by some.

reply to post by iforget


Sorry if this was mentioned, but from reviewing the links in the OP of the other thread, a few days ago.....what I gleaned was the influence of massive gravitational forces, from an "outsider" that either passed by, or was in a long elliptical re-curring orbit, caused the orbits of some of these "native" planets to precess. Eventually, to make complete 180° "flips", as it were.

Might have been a relatively *quick* process, or more gradual....didn't see a clear-cut answer, still trying to reason out the physics....

Helps to understand gyroscopic precession physics....but how that interacts with gravitational fields is the *puzzle*, I guess....