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: 3
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 03:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by chr0naut
reply to post by jiggerj
 

This clumping of mass caused the distortion of space-time that we call gravitation. The greater the mass, the more it affects the curvature of space-time, the more curved space-time the greater the change to the angular momentum of matter.

This gravitation also gave rise to resonances which could occur between the clumps. In this way there were preferred distances of clumps between each other, relative to their mass and motion.


Exactly! Even before our sun ignited, it had gathered all of its mass, causing the full space-time curve that we know and love today. Yet, this full curve was there when the planets were still forming, still small. So:

Why didn't all of the dust and rock and ice in the solar system fall into the sun? Why didn't the baby-sized planets fall into the sun?

The dust cloud couldn't have been orbiting the sun fast enough to keep from falling into it.




posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 04:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj
The infant planets with little mass and all that dust should have fallen right into the sun. Yes? No?

Look at the motion of the dust that formed the planets in the last link in my post above and you can see the dust was already in orbit around the sun. This doesn't mean some dust and planets didn't get pulled into the sun...that may have happened with some early protoplanets. It was a chaotic process as suggested by simulations and other evidence.


Originally posted by jiggerj
The dust cloud couldn't have been orbiting the sun fast enough to keep from falling into it.

Here is a simulation to show you how some stuff did fall into the star, including a large planet, but other planets still formed that didn't:

Planetary System Formation Simulation (200 AU View)

edit on 21-8-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 04:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by shadowplaya
well the big bang, was an explosion sending everything off into every direction. When larger objects like stars got close enough to smaller objects like rocks planets, etc. they just "attracted" them with great vast amounts of gravity. and the objects rotated around the larger ones. And since space has no friction, they keep moving forever. unless they hit another object.

and that works for pretty much every object in space.

moons orbit planets
planets orbit suns(stars)
Stars in multiple star systems (binaries, trinaries, etc) orbit their common center of mass.
galaxys orbit (black holes and galaxy cluters)
edit on 20-8-2012 by shadowplaya because: (no reason given)


If this were true all planets would have been attracted into the sun not around it. Gravity pulls not repels. Scientific explanation is struggling to find a plausable explanation. I think this is an exclelent question and one I had never thought of before.

I'm sure those that believe everything came from nothing will find an equally unimaginative explanation that also is based purely on 'theory' (it's own fantatsic faith)

I'm interested so see what others say that can explain it.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 04:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by chr0naut
reply to post by jiggerj
 

This clumping of mass caused the distortion of space-time that we call gravitation. The greater the mass, the more it affects the curvature of space-time, the more curved space-time the greater the change to the angular momentum of matter.

This gravitation also gave rise to resonances which could occur between the clumps. In this way there were preferred distances of clumps between each other, relative to their mass and motion.


Exactly! Even before our sun ignited, it had gathered all of its mass, causing the full space-time curve that we know and love today. Yet, this full curve was there when the planets were still forming, still small. So:

Why didn't all of the dust and rock and ice in the solar system fall into the sun? Why didn't the baby-sized planets fall into the sun?

The dust cloud couldn't have been orbiting the sun fast enough to keep from falling into it.


Remember also that stars are constantly and explosively expelling matter in the form of solar winds which themselves are turbulent and dynamic.

Solar winds also affect the surrounding dust halos too.

These planetary nurseries are windy & wild places on scales of billions of years.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 06:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by lightmeup04
Well someone will come along with a perfect scientific explanation but in all reality, I believe no one really has proof of how planets are formed. It is all theories and speculation. Gravity, mass and velocity I am sure play a key role but then again we do have rouge planets wondering around. Something had to give...which was it?

Lightmeup04

DUH. Of course it's theories. It can only be a fact if it is observed. In the meantime the theories will change as more planetary systems are analysed (we only had one up to now and there are trillions out there!!!).

Please please become familiar with the terms fact , theory , law. So many people interchange these in order to defend their warped viewpoint.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 09:43 AM
link   
Gravity...The more you pull the planets towards a large mass the speed will increase.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 02:09 PM
link   
Sometimes I wonder if some greatly intelligent being(s) 'made' this solar system. The mathematics are too precise. The planetary positions and sizes are about as mathematically interesting as the Great Pyramid. Something to consider, no?




posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anthony1138
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.


Why you! I...! (Hangs head in shame.) I've seen the statistics.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by chr0naut
I think that what JiggerJ was hinting at was the celestial mechanics that could cause the orbital rotations from a perceived "static" background.


Yeah! Something like that.
We have the mass that is the sun. We have the sun's curve in space-time. We have the dust and gases that will form the planets, only as these materials attempt to coalesce into little balls of matter - how do they speed up and maintain an orbit within the sun's space-time curve.

I mean, the sun's gravity is SOOO powerful that it even holds Neptune in orbit that is almost three billion miles away. How could any forming dust ball NOT careen right into the sun?
edit on 8/21/2012 by jiggerj because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by jiggerj
The infant planets with little mass and all that dust should have fallen right into the sun. Yes? No?

Look at the motion of the dust that formed the planets in the last link in my post above and you can see the dust was already in orbit around the sun. This doesn't mean some dust and planets didn't get pulled into the sun...that may have happened with some early protoplanets. It was a chaotic process as suggested by simulations and other evidence.


Originally posted by jiggerj
The dust cloud couldn't have been orbiting the sun fast enough to keep from falling into it.

Here is a simulation to show you how some stuff did fall into the star, including a large planet, but other planets still formed that didn't:

Planetary System Formation Simulation (200 AU View)

edit on 21-8-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification


Nice!
So, something had already set the dust in motion. That's what I was looking for. Thanks!



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by SpearMint
 


thats like asking is god real?

believers will say yes and give undeniable proof (in their views ) that they are right and why.

The same answers they use to answer that question can be used as reasons why god "isnt" real and non believers will give the same reasons why they are right ( in their views) and why.

So who is right in this scenereo? who is wrong? and who is correct?



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by pacifier2012
 

What i said is true and is easily explained using Keplers Law of planetary motion

en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 21-8-2012 by shadowplaya because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloro
Sometimes I wonder if some greatly intelligent being(s) 'made' this solar system. The mathematics are too precise. The planetary positions and sizes are about as mathematically interesting as the Great Pyramid. Something to consider, no?



There are most likely infinite universes going in and out of existence...it just that ours got the numbers right to be stable...was it God or just odds....
edit on 21-8-2012 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join