It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
NANTES, France—Knock, knock. That's not the start of a joke but the hard-luck history of Uranus. New research suggests that the giant planet may have suffered two massive impacts early in its history, which would account for its extreme, mysterious axial tilt.
Uranus orbits nearly on its side; its axis of rotation is skewed by 98 degrees relative to an ordinary upright orientation, perpendicular to the orbital plane. Many planetary scientists have sought to explain the odd tilt by invoking a giant impact into Uranus billions of years ago. But the giant planet has a system of moons circling its equator that would have been disrupted by such an impact.
"If Uranus is suddenly tilted, the satellites keep moving like that from north pole to south pole, and [wouldn't be] equatorial at all," Alessandro Morbidelli of the Observatory of Côte d’Azur in Nice, France, reported here Thursday at a joint meeting of the American Astronomical Society Division for Planetary Sciences and the European Planetary Science Congress. [Read more planetary news from the meeting here.] But what if the tilting was a more gradual process, caused not by one mammoth impact but by two somewhat smaller nudges? Simulations show that the two-strike mechanism appears to solve the problem, knocking Uranus sideways and allowing it to develop equatorially orbiting moons, Morbidelli said(...)
The assertion was based on statements made to the journal by Alessandro Morbidelli, an astronomer at France’s observatory at Côte d’Azur. The Solar System, he explained, was chaotic in the beginning. There was a celestial collision involving a “supplementary planet” that had existed where the Asteroid Belt is now. It happened about 3.9 billion years ago; and those events explain the unusual long elliptical orbit of the “Phantom Planet.”
Originally posted by OldCorp
I'm going to be very interested in reading the replies to this.
Question to Phage and other well informed debunkers: What is the current scientific rational for the existence of the asteroid belt? Was it once a planet that was destroyed, or are the asteroids left over from the formation of the solar system that have not coalesced into a planet yet?
Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
reply to post by OldCorp
You said star and flag for him, but I gave him a star and flag, and he only has one.
OP thank you for sharing that, I never heard of this. I am going to bookmark it and check it out later.
Star and Flag, no joke
My starting point is the postulate that myths throughout the world should be taken at face value. For the recurring worldwide mythology this is almost completely obvious.
Any attempts to apply local cultural conditions and limited attitudes to mythology as a general theory, meets with failure, because of a lack of appreciation of the enormous scope of mythology throughout the world, and the constant refrain of identical themes by peoples who have remained completely foreign to each other -- who have never had cultural contact.
Any theory of mythology based on limited and local aspects will fail to translate to the hundreds of additional instances across the world. This holds for notions of ritual, of model behaviour, of allegories of nature, of personifications of the weather, and any other metaphorical meanings. All these myopic attemps fail utterly in the face of the wide diversity of meaning among languages and grammars, and not least also in the enormous cultural differences between peoples. All explanations of the origins of myths are doomed to failure when based on a limited scope of myth
The migration of the outer planets is also necessary to account for the existence and properties of the Solar System's outermost regions. Originally, the Kuiper belt was much denser and closer to the Sun, with an outer edge at approximately 30 AU. Its inner edge would have been just beyond the orbits of Uranus and Neptune, which were in turn far closer to the Sun when they formed (most likely in the range of 15–20 AU), and in opposite locations, with Uranus farther from the Sun than Neptune.
Some of the scattered objects, including Pluto, became gravitationally tied to Neptune's orbit, forcing them into mean-motion resonances. The Nice model is favoured for its ability to explain the occupancy of current orbital resonances in the Kuiper belt, particularly the 2:5 resonance. As Neptune migrated outward, it approached the objects in the proto-Kuiper belt, capturing some of them into resonances and sending others into chaotic orbits. The objects in the scattered disc are believed to have been placed in their current positions by interactions with Neptune's migrating resonances.
However, the Nice model still fails to account for many of the characteristics of the distribution. It is able to produce the hot population, objects in the Kuiper belt that have highly inclined orbits, but not the low-inclination cold population.
The two populations not only possess different orbits, but different compositions; the cold population is markedly redder than the hot, suggesting it formed in a different region. The hot population is believed to have formed near Jupiter, and to have been ejected out by movements among the gas giants. The cold population, on the other hand, is believed to have formed more or less in its current position, although it may also have been later swept outwards by Neptune during its migration. Quoting one of the scientific articles, the problems "continue to challenge analytical techniques and the fastest numerical modeling hardware and software