It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What threw the planets around the sun?

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 10:09 PM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


the orbiting planets COULD have started off from the gravity of the sun same way as water swirls as it goes down a drain, but just far enough away to not get sucked into the sun and at the right speed to maintain their orbits.. i have no idea really.




posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 10:11 PM
link   
It was a spinning ball of hot goo. God did it with science.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by lightmeup04
 


There are probably rouge planets outside our galaxy close enough to keep orbiting our galaxy. We know enough about or solar system to know that if God did create it? God did so, in a matter that would take about 4.5 billion years.

We have actually observed new stars form and can even observe disks of dust around them that eventually become planets.

Literally this kind of thing happens every day, about 40 light years from here there is a solar system that has nothing but asteroids. In about another 4 billion years that solar system, will have planets, hopefully one that can harbor life similar to ours.

Any thoughts?



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by lightmeup04
 


There are probably rouge planets outside our galaxy close enough to keep orbiting our galaxy. We know enough about or solar system to know that if God did create it? God did so, in a matter that would take about 4.5 billion years.

We have actually observed new stars form and can even observe disks of dust around them that eventually become planets.

Literally this kind of thing happens every day, about 40 light years from here there is a solar system that has nothing but asteroids. In about another 4 billion years that solar system, will have planets, hopefully one that can harbor life similar to ours.

Any thoughts?


Rogue - Definition, The Free Dictionary

Rouge - Definition, The Free Dictionary

Sorry the Grammar-Nazi in me sought expression.



edit on 20/8/2012 by chr0naut because: I had visions of planets in makeup doing the Can-Can!



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Kashai
 


Who knows...to much out there that we can't see. Who is to say that a wondering body of mass has not been jolted from its very existance 4 billion or so years ago and some how is crossing paths with our solor system in the near future? No one knows!!! We can't find everything constant. We are very lucky or unlucky to live in a time we might just witness such a thing. Time will tell.

Lightmeup04



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by chr0naut
 


That is great, you are good at using others material. Have you ever had a free thought in your mind? Maybe something you thought of on your own? You remind me of a force feeder. You should try thinking for yourself once in awhile. It does feel good by the way. Instead of feeding us the same old garbage from someone else's words. Please.....if you have something to say, tell us something we don't already know!! Your main stream science is getting shattered as we write.

Lightmeup04



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by lightmeup04
reply to post by chr0naut
 


That is great, you are good at using others material. Have you ever had a free thought in your mind? Maybe something you thought of on your own? You remind me of a force feeder. You should try thinking for yourself once in awhile. It does feel good by the way. Instead of feeding us the same old garbage from someone else's words. Please.....if you have something to say, tell us something we don't already know!! Your main stream science is getting shattered as we write.

Lightmeup04


Would you, perhaps, be happier if I made it all up?



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by lightmeup04
 


The idea that a rouge planet is orbiting our solar system is the result of gravity, if in fact there is one. Keep in mind modern science has identified, a planet like Neptune. That is 4.4 billion km from earth, why would we have a problem identifying a rouge planet?

Any thoughts?



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by chr0naut
 


Who made anything up? Everything I have stated has just as much value as to what you were told. Who did tell you what you know? Who says they are right? Because someone published something or its common sence? Can you tell me for certain that everything you were told and believe to be true? That is the funniest sh#t that I can't seem to wrap my head around. Someone told you so!! Like I said....give me some of your own thought instead of something someone told you to be true. This is the exact reason why we are stuck where we are. No thought of our own. Just a force feeder!!

Lightmeup04



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 11:37 PM
link   
I can consider a world where the Toltec's (a word that actually means scientist). Developed a means to incorporate Mayan sound technology, to an object about the size of the Ark of the Covenant.

Any thoughts?
edit on 20-8-2012 by Kashai because: added content

edit on 20-8-2012 by Kashai because: modifed content

edit on 20-8-2012 by Kashai because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 12:33 AM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


Lots of rocks and junk, the young solar system was a violent one indeed, planets smashing and stuff, the original velocity was the supernova that created the gas and dust in the first place.

I assume you are an american who has been denied basic logic, it truly is a crime denying people basic knowledge.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 12:40 AM
link   
reply to post by chr0naut
 


To add to your post...

The universe started out as mostly hydrogen (element 1) atoms with some Helium (element 2) atoms. Gravity pulled this into clouds that continued to get pulled into massive dense clouds. The mass of these clouds caused the hydrogen to fission and so we had massive stars with very short life spans. As these massive stars went super nova all the other elements were made.

One may ask why is their more iron in the universe than gold, and the answer is iron is formed very early in the process and gold happen in a very short period of time during the super nova. Once the universe became more stable with 92 elements gravity caused these super nova remnants once again to form into dense clouds and smaller suns like ours were formed with planets forming too with the other heavier elements. Jupiter is actually a failed star that never reached the size for fission to happen, so stars and planets are formed all the time in a never ending cycle. Stars are much more massive than planets and so the Gravity of stars keep the planets around them.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by lightmeup04
reply to post by chr0naut
 


Who made anything up? Everything I have stated has just as much value as to what you were told. Who did tell you what you know? Who says they are right? Because someone published something or its common sence? Can you tell me for certain that everything you were told and believe to be true? That is the funniest sh#t that I can't seem to wrap my head around. Someone told you so!! Like I said....give me some of your own thought instead of something someone told you to be true. This is the exact reason why we are stuck where we are. No thought of our own. Just a force feeder!!

Lightmeup04


I never denied the value of anything you said, but I could.

Are you a troll?



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
reply to post by chr0naut
 


To add to your post...

The universe started out as mostly hydrogen (element 1) atoms with some Helium (element 2) atoms. Gravity pulled this into clouds that continued to get pulled into massive dense clouds. The mass of these clouds caused the hydrogen to fission and so we had massive stars with very short life spans. As these massive stars went super nova all the other elements were made.

One may ask why is their more iron in the universe than gold, and the answer is iron is formed very early in the process and gold happen in a very short period of time during the super nova. Once the universe became more stable with 92 elements gravity caused these super nova remnants once again to form into dense clouds and smaller suns like ours were formed with planets forming too with the other heavier elements. Jupiter is actually a failed star that never reached the size for fission to happen, so stars and planets are formed all the time in a never ending cycle. Stars are much more massive than planets and so the Gravity of stars keep the planets around them.


I heartily agree!



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 01:06 AM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


Explanation: S&F!

Supernova [wiki]


Although no supernova has been observed in the Milky Way since 1604, supernovae remnants indicate that on average the event occurs about once every 50 years in the Milky Way. They play a significant role in enriching the interstellar medium with higher mass elements. Furthermore, the expanding shock waves from supernova explosions can trigger the formation of new stars.


Supernova: Role in stellar evolution [wiki]


The remnant of a supernova explosion consists of a compact object and a rapidly expanding shock wave of material. This cloud of material sweeps up the surrounding interstellar medium during a free expansion phase, which can last for up to two centuries. The wave then gradually undergoes a period of adiabatic expansion, and will slowly cool and mix with the surrounding interstellar medium over a period of about 10,000 years.

The Big Bang produced hydrogen, helium, and traces of lithium, while all heavier elements are synthesized in stars and supernovae. Supernovae tend to enrich the surrounding interstellar medium with metals—elements other than hydrogen and helium.

These injected elements ultimately enrich the molecular clouds that are the sites of star formation. Thus, each stellar generation has a slightly different composition, going from an almost pure mixture of hydrogen and helium to a more metal-rich composition. Supernovae are the dominant mechanism for distributing these heavier elements, which are formed in a star during its period of nuclear fusion. The different abundances of elements in the material that forms a star have important influences on the star's life, and may decisively influence the possibility of having planets orbiting it.

The kinetic energy of an expanding supernova remnant can trigger star formation due to compression of nearby, dense molecular clouds in space. The increase in turbulent pressure can also prevent star formation if the cloud is unable to lose the excess energy.

Evidence from daughter products of short-lived radioactive isotopes shows that a nearby supernova helped determine the composition of the Solar System 4.5 billion years ago, and may even have triggered the formation of this system. Supernova production of heavy elements over astronomic periods of time ultimately made the chemistry of life on Earth possible.


Personal Disclosure: I hope that helps answer the OP's question.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 01:22 AM
link   
I think that what JiggerJ was hinting at was the celestial mechanics that could cause the orbital rotations from a perceived "static" background.

Although I touched on this in my first posted reply, it is specifically covered as an three-body exercise in celestial mechanics, where one or more of the three bodies (masses) is in motion relative to the others at the outset. One of the bodies generally gets the two other bodies orbiting each other as it passes by leaving the 'system'.

Similarly, the planar nature of galaxy and solar system formation is most likely due to orbital resonance, i.e: off planar orbits are likely to gradually attract each other towards a planar solution on subsequent closest passes. While this may not be enough to fully destabilize the orbits it can draw divergent orbits into the same plane.



edit on 21/8/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by chr0naut

Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by lightmeup04
 


There are probably rouge planets outside our galaxy close enough to keep orbiting our galaxy. We know enough about or solar system to know that if God did create it? God did so, in a matter that would take about 4.5 billion years.

We have actually observed new stars form and can even observe disks of dust around them that eventually become planets.

Literally this kind of thing happens every day, about 40 light years from here there is a solar system that has nothing but asteroids. In about another 4 billion years that solar system, will have planets, hopefully one that can harbor life similar to ours.

Any thoughts?


Rogue - Definition, The Free Dictionary

Rouge - Definition, The Free Dictionary

Sorry the Grammar-Nazi in me sought expression.



edit on 20/8/2012 by chr0naut because: I had visions of planets in makeup doing the Can-Can!



Oh thank Dog you did that!

I was about to go on a rant of accumulated frustration about the way people are communicating with eachother in false and degenerate language.
We may as well be early apes, practicing our first attempts at communicating beyond grunts and groans.

Their, there, they're.....which one applies here?
Too, to.....which one?
Rouge, as in lipstick or red cheek powder.....or Rogue, as in a desocialized, deviant outsider...which one?

Thank you for bringing this out: It's time someone did.
How can one take anybody's post seriously if their spelling is so demented that one has to wonder about their formative education?

Then one gets these posts that bring up religious crap versus science, like 'God' slung the planets around the sun, as a novel sport...

Oh my Dog!



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 03:31 AM
link   
Ever thought maybe it's beginning now, aka a feedback type loop?

That is E=MC^2, right? Consider maybe this is an 'organizational strategy', a 'vote' for stability of a system, rather than a 'scientific discovery. Like.. How many tweets did this idea get?

Also, E (Energy) and mass are conversionary here. So what's with the linear frame of consideration, here? What if there's a constant 'feedback' loop going on, and the mass is constantly being converted into a simulation of sorts, via electricity, and continuing the feedback loop to continue the creation of other planets via simulations... A simulation 'bridges' the gap between mass and energy, and kablammo..you get a little bang, an extra planet or something of that nature... so the real questions becomes.. a) who controls the simulation b) when you have sex, where is that energy going? c) are women really gettin pregnant???



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 03:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj
But as the planets first formed, how could they have been orbiting the sun? What gave them the speed in the beginning to keep them in a stable orbit?
The earliest lumps of mass that clumped together weren't all in stable orbits. Many orbits were unstable and that's how protoplanet Thea crashed into Earth and formed the Earth's moon according to the most popular theory of how the moon formed. The 8 planets which remain in stable orbits are what's left after as many as 20-100 infant planets formed in all kinds of orbits.

The combination of gravity and inertia are what result in the spin of disks of gas that form solar systems.


Originally posted by Kashai
Its like "dust bunnies," they formed on there own.

Here's a video of the clumping process starting, found by an astronaut:

dsc.discovery.com...

That video's not bad. I thought surely there must be better animations on youtube so I searched, got over a dozen results, and watched a bunch...most aren't very good and the one you posted is actually better than most of them.

The best animations of solar system formation I've seen are in a TV show called "How the Universe Works", season 1 episode 6 on planets and season 1 episode 7 on solar systems. They are far better than anything else I could find on youtube, but nobody has uploaded those yet or if they did, they were removed. You might be able to find them on a torrent but I'm not sure about that?

Not only are those animations very good, but the explanations are also pretty good and so is the scientific accuracy. Here is a 2 minute clip on solar system formation that shows how the spinning disk of dust forms so you can see the source of the planets and how they got their orbits but it stops just before the planets form, so you have to watch the full episode to see that:

dsc.discovery.com...

By the way my avatar shows a stellar nursery where we can watch new solar systems being born, in various stages. The video starts out showing the stellar nursery in my avatar.
edit on 21-8-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 03:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirhumperdink
reply to post by jiggerj
 


gravitational pull is proportional to the mass of the objects


What is this pull you speak of? I thought it was settled that the planets orbited the sun by sitting in the right position in the curve of space-time? So, gravity is the mass of a planet, the planet's speed, and it's position along the space-time curve. Right?




and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them (inverse square law) so small objects in a ring of dust may be to be more attracted to each other than they are to the sun these gather and condense into the planets (denser particles being closer to the sun and lighter ones being further away)
the dust itself is already in orbit before the planets are even formed (i think thats what youre missing)


Yes, this is what I'm referring to. The dust is already in orbit around the sun. But, wait. The sun has already gathered all of it's mass, and has already created the space-time curve. This curve is powerful enough to hold planets in their orbit, but we're talking BEFORE the planets were fully formed. The infant planets with little mass and all that dust should have fallen right into the sun. Yes? No?



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join