In the Beginning...

[timtofly]

Is there something inherently wrong with using science to figure out the past?

Honestly, at this point I'm trying to fathom how a Civ player who presumably knows the importance of research for gaining new knowledge can seem so suspicious of it in RL.

Some "facts" are not really facts, or they're only true under certain conditions. It's important to know the difference.

Berzerker, I'm not going to quote the numerous other instances where you keep repeating your notion about where Earth formed. You were asked for a link, you didn't provide one (don't bother insisting you did; that article did NOT state what I asked for, so it doesn't count), and you keep acting as though I took Lorizael by the shirt collar and dragged him here from the other forum and sat him down and ordered him to post. Nothing of the sort happened. I was actually hoping he could suggest a source that would back up your claim, because that way we could just move on. But he didn't, and in all these weeks, I've done a few searches of my own.

The result has been zip. The only one making this claim is you.

What I do not understand is why some go so virulently out of their way to prove their view of what happened. All sides use the same science, and some people even applaud the effort by those humans in the past who have tried, no matter what they believed. We are denigrating no one, but for some reason there are people in modern times who go out of their way to do so. Is it really that big of deal what people believe? People who seek control over other people seem to have to be dogmatic and without fault. That makes about as much sense, from a human standpoint where such a goal cannot be maintained, as you yourself have been trying to point out about humans in the past.

If you have settled on how every thing happened in the past, then I am happy for you. Some of us are still trying to figure it out, even though the routes we take may be totally different.

You do realize that there is no way the Babylonians could have known about Saturn's moons, right? That's another discovery that wasn't made until the 17th century.

I have to wonder why, in this thread, you don't mention that you're only concerned with one incident of Saturn's equatorial plane "pointing" at Pluto (seems like awfully rude behavior; didn't anyone ever teach Saturn that it's not polite to point?). You finally made it clear in that other thread.

You're aware that the atmospheres of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune are not oxygen/nitrogen/trace gases, right? I hope you've noticed that we don't have an atmosphere comprised mainly of hydrocarbons, and that Earth is, in fact, not even remotely of a size to be considered a "giant" anything.

Please. Stop with this. Earth is not a gas giant, so it's just nonsense to say it was "different than the 'other' four gas giants."

Planets don't "pick" what size they end up being. Really, they don't.

That was my point. Some here think their size was pre-determined and nothing could change that. You claim the earth is not a gas giant, but that does not mean it did not start out on it's way to becoming one, but something happened to change that. You seem to even mock the efforts of science who try to figure out how Pluto was formed. Maybe you are not, but that seems to be coming across.

So some mythological planet is somehow responsible for something going wrong with two successive Olympic Games???

All the sources I've seen state a timeframe of 450,000 years ago. What's your source?

Link?

The only online source that I could find that list anything in history was wiki. Their facts may need to be checked, but not sure that I need to be convinced. I am just pointing out the only thing that wiki mentioned happening that year. It was pointed out that no one seemed too interested in a wandering planet back then. I am not even sure of my math, or how to go about it, but I posted it here, to show how I arrived to plot where this Planet would have been noticeable, if any thing is as they are claimed. If the Greeks were the only active "observers" at that time, then they seemed more interested in sports than science, or it seems they tried. The Babylonians seemed to have been winding down, and settled in their astrology as they were about to begin a war campaign. Unless such a new object in the sky meant they were going to be successful in their war effort.

This is ... indescribable. Velikovsky would have been proud of you.

As you keep pointing out that scientist keep coming up with this mountain of "evidence". I see no need to let it go to waste. Too bad he lived before all the new data that has been coming in over the last 5 to 10 years.

I think this is what Berzerker is talking about. When Pluto is at its maximum height above the ecliptic, or at perihelion (not sure which as these don't coincide, so that's why I drew two Plutos), AND when it's in opposition to Saturn, then the plane of Saturn's rings intersects with Pluto.
View attachment 455859
Looking at a few numbers on Wikipedia and doing a bit of trigonometry shows that he might be right. Or at least in the right ballpark, though I'd be surprised if it's an exact match.

Unfortunately there's no evidence that this is anything other than a (not particularly massive) coincidence, nor is there any obvious orbital mechanism as to how this could signify anything anyway.

I also thought I'd google "Saturn's rings point to Pluto" and see if I could find other people talking about this and maybe drawing better diagrams. The only relevant hit I got was... Berzerker talking about the same thing 12 years ago.

This seems close, representing Pluto's 17 degree plane to the sun's plane. I don't know what position Saturn would have to be for it's rings (disc) to have the same 17 degree angle with the sun, maybe it is impossible. You have Pluto in an orbit opposite of the one that I linked to. You have Pluto coming from the top right and cutting through the sun's disc to bottom left. That may be the only path that matches Saturn's disc though. But there is a 6 degree difference between 17 and 23, thus the need to have Pluto twice.

Perhaps there is a reason why humans tend to view God and this planet in a similar view? They both seem to be missing at inopportune times. It does seem that there was a 3600 year difference between the last two times they seemed to declare this as one of their gods. And quite possibly the last 3 times. The Bible seems to think there is going to be a forth time where Babylon comes into play, but that may not be for another 800 years. I am not sure though on such a long journey when and how long such a planet is even on "display" in the solar system. This does not even mean I believe in the phenomenon. Call me a skeptic.

No it's simple. If Berzerker claims something and you make an argument to refute his claim, he can then counter your refutation. No matter if successful or not, your refutation has been invalidated. This leaves as the only conclusion that Berzerker was right all along.

Massively parallelise this procedure across multiple people and threads of argument and you can overwhelm everyone with your gish gallop.

Whether is was intentional or not, it fits his screen name.

 

[Arakhor]

You mean the question mark avatar that many people are now sporting for lack of ever setting one?

 

[timtofly]

You mean the question mark avatar that many people are now sporting for lack of ever setting one?

Was that my first ninja????

I lump everything up in that corner as an avatar.


I got mine from the CIV icons, that the forum posted, unless there is someone who has the Havoc sprite from Civ 2 TOT, I am just going to have to wait until the forum is settled to see if they make them available again. I tired to figure out how to separate it from the .gif file, but have not succeeded.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

This seems close, representing Pluto's 17 degree plane to the sun's plane. I don't know what position Saturn would have to be for it's rings (disc) to have the same 17 degree angle with the sun, maybe it is impossible. You have Pluto in an orbit opposite of the one that I linked to. You have Pluto coming from the top right and cutting through the sun's disc to bottom left. That may be the only path that matches Saturn's disc though. But there is a 6 degree difference between 17 and 23, thus the need to have Pluto twice.

I think you've misunderstood the diagram. Or what I was showing with it. Or... well something anyway.

Saturn's axis is inclined at about 26.5 degrees, so this is the angle that the ring system has to its orbital plane (which I guess is what you mean by the "sun's plane"). This angle is fixed (ignoring any precession) so it is always 26.5 degrees, never 17. But it doesn't need to be 17 as that is not what the diagram is showing, nor what I think Berzerker is saying. He's saying that the angle between Saturn and Pluto, relative to Saturn's orbital plane, when both planets are in this particular configuration, is 26.5 degrees as well.

I don't know what you mean by Pluto being in an "opposite" orbit to the one you linked to, I just drew it as it actually is (schematically). It doesn't really matter what angle you view it from, you can mirror the image if you want and pretend you're looking from the other side.

I drew Pluto twice because I'm not clear if Berzerker is talking about this alignment occurring when Pluto is at its maximum height above the ecliptic, or when it's at perihelion, so I just drew it at both positions.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

What I do not understand is why some go so virulently out of their way to prove their view of what happened. All sides use the same science, and some people even applaud the effort by those humans in the past who have tried, no matter what they believed. We are denigrating no one, but for some reason there are people in modern times who go out of their way to do so. Is it really that big of deal what people believe? People who seek control over other people seem to have to be dogmatic and without fault. That makes about as much sense, from a human standpoint where such a goal cannot be maintained, as you yourself have been trying to point out about humans in the past.

Whut?

By this point, you should be well aware that I'm against pseudoscience being peddled as the real thing. Sitchin is peddling pseudoscience, he's got nothing that proves his notions, but as we've seen for the past 80+ pages (plus an old thread linked by Perfection), he's clearly got at least 2.5 fans on this forum.

If you have settled on how every thing happened in the past, then I am happy for you. Some of us are still trying to figure it out, even though the routes we take may be totally different.

If you were using real science to figure it out, I'd offer you the smiley (which we don't have yet). But you're not using real science - you're using part-bible, part Sitchin, part von Daniken/Velikovsky-type nonsense, and a helping of... indescribableness that I can't possibly express here in any positive way.

If any of this (to use Carl Sagan's phrase) "game of cosmic billiards" were true, why didn't my college astronomy instructor mention it? Why didn't Neil Degrasse Tyson endorse it in his version of Cosmos (approximately 20 years later than Sagan's updated version)?

That was my point. Some here think their size was pre-determined and nothing could change that. You claim the earth is not a gas giant, but that does not mean it did not start out on it's way to becoming one, but something happened to change that. You seem to even mock the efforts of science who try to figure out how Pluto was formed. Maybe you are not, but that seems to be coming across.

Who thinks their size was pre-determined? As for my "claim" that Earth isn't a gas giant, unless you're living in an alternate universe, just go look out the window. See all that evidence that you're not living on a gas giant?

I'm not mocking the efforts of real, legitimate planetary scientists who are trying to figure out how Pluto was formed. But Sitchin is not a planetary scientist, and neither is Berzerker. I don't remember my astronomy instructor saying in class, "Oh, btw, this guy named Sitchin says that Pluto used to be a moon of Saturn, and Saturn told it to go take a message somewhere, and that's how it ended up where it is."

I do remember that the year I took that course was the year when Hale-Bopp visited Earth, and I was really happy to have seen it for myself. The astronomy instructor was happy as well, but he didn't mention anything about some rogue planet with a 3600-year orbit messing things up. You'd think that someone with several science degrees (doctorates) would have known about that, if it were true.

The only online source that I could find that list anything in history was wiki. Their facts may need to be checked, but not sure that I need to be convinced. I am just pointing out the only thing that wiki mentioned happening that year. It was pointed out that no one seemed too interested in a wandering planet back then. I am not even sure of my math, or how to go about it, but I posted it here, to show how I arrived to plot where this Planet would have been noticeable, if any thing is as they are claimed. If the Greeks were the only active "observers" at that time, then they seemed more interested in sports than science, or it seems they tried. The Babylonians seemed to have been winding down, and settled in their astrology as they were about to begin a war campaign. Unless such a new object in the sky meant they were going to be successful in their war effort.

As I said: Link?

It's silly to claim that the Greeks were "more interested in sports than science." Some of them were interested in sports, and some were interested in science. Some may have been interested in both, plus other things as well. And why would you think they were the only "active observers"?

As you keep pointing out that scientist keep coming up with this mountain of "evidence". I see no need to let it go to waste. Too bad he lived before all the new data that has been coming in over the last 5 to 10 years.

To what "evidence" are you referring? Velikovsky was no scientist. About the politest term I can think of is "crackpot."

This seems close, representing Pluto's 17 degree plane to the sun's plane. I don't know what position Saturn would have to be for it's rings (disc) to have the same 17 degree angle with the sun, maybe it is impossible. You have Pluto in an orbit opposite of the one that I linked to. You have Pluto coming from the top right and cutting through the sun's disc to bottom left. That may be the only path that matches Saturn's disc though. But there is a 6 degree difference between 17 and 23, thus the need to have Pluto twice.

I don't have Pluto doing anything that it hasn't been verified by real astronomers to be doing. Same with Saturn. They're just planets. They're not gods, messengers, or anything else that's other than round(ish) spheres of rock, ice, and gas in orbit around a G2 star.

Perhaps there is a reason why humans tend to view God and this planet in a similar view? They both seem to be missing at inopportune times. It does seem that there was a 3600 year difference between the last two times they seemed to declare this as one of their gods. And quite possibly the last 3 times. The Bible seems to think there is going to be a forth time where Babylon comes into play, but that may not be for another 800 years. I am not sure though on such a long journey when and how long such a planet is even on "display" in the solar system. This does not even mean I believe in the phenomenon. Call me a skeptic.

You'd think that a planet with such a relatively short-term orbit (in comparison to some of the Oort Cloud comets and even some of the Kuiper Belt Objects, whose orbits run to tens of thousands of years) would have been discovered by now.

As for what the Bible "thinks"... it's not a science book, or even an accurate history book

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I don't have Pluto doing anything that it hasn't been verified by real astronomers to be doing. Same with Saturn. They're just planets. They're not gods, messengers, or anything else that's other than round(ish) spheres of rock, ice, and gas in orbit around a G2 star.

He was replying to me...

 

[timtofly]

I'm not mocking the efforts of real, legitimate planetary scientists who are trying to figure out how Pluto was formed. But Sitchin is not a planetary scientist, and neither is Berzerker. I don't remember my astronomy instructor saying in class, "Oh, btw, this guy named Sitchin says that Pluto used to be a moon of Saturn, and Saturn told it to go take a message somewhere, and that's how it ended up where it is."

I do remember that the year I took that course was the year when Hale-Bopp visited Earth, and I was really happy to have seen it for myself. The astronomy instructor was happy as well, but he didn't mention anything about some rogue planet with a 3600-year orbit messing things up. You'd think that someone with several science degrees (doctorates) would have known about that, if it were true.

To what "evidence" are you referring? Velikovsky was no scientist. About the politest term I can think of is "crackpot."

I don't have Pluto doing anything that it hasn't been verified by real astronomers to be doing. Same with Saturn. They're just planets. They're not gods, messengers, or anything else that's other than round(ish) spheres of rock, ice, and gas in orbit around a G2 star.

You'd think that a planet with such a relatively short-term orbit (in comparison to some of the Oort Cloud comets and even some of the Kuiper Belt Objects, whose orbits run to tens of thousands of years) would have been discovered by now.

As for what the Bible "thinks"... it's not a science book, or even an accurate history book

The whole point that you are trying to make is that this is not about science, and we already agreed with you. You asked if there was something wrong with science, and I said, "No". I get that you don't like us comparing the ancient myths with science. That is about the gist that scholars had with Velikovsky. He was a Psychiatrist and a well educated one, and they complained because he was writing about science not in his field of education.

Does some degree on the wall make one an expert? One has to study to get that degree. It is usually practice and peer review of testing and re-testing that makes a paper accepted. I get all off that. What I do not get is the violent attacks on a person's character and work, just because they say something that goes against another person's opinion. That is all peer review is. Everybody agrees that one opinion is right and all others are wrong. Most just shrug their shoulders, say ok , and move on. They don't take it personally, they just keep trying and hope to make the next big break through.

I cannot speak for Berzerker, but I am not trying to change every one's opinion, nor really saying any one is wrong. When it comes to cosmology, they have to put something in print that we currently agree on, but no one has made a concrete final authoritative dogmatic statement that scientist have discovered exactly what happened. It is still a work in progress.

If some Babylonian educated people thought there was a planet, and the majority (like to day) refused to acknowledge it, because it did not make sense to them, there will be no record of it in history, as something that got passed down as relative for future generations. Now you claim that humans should have some record or evidence, yet toss out the only evidence there is as just being some mythology. So there you go, there is evidence, but not to your liking.

You claim there are mountains of evidence that "claims" we are wrong. All I have said is that I agree, and it is all in the interpretation, just like you interpret the Bible and any other myths as being wrong. I am not even claiming your mountains of evidence is wrong. I have just not seen any that convinces me that your interpretation is acceptable. Evidence technically makes no claims. It is just there to be interpreted.

I think you've misunderstood the diagram. Or what I was showing with it. Or... well something anyway.

Saturn's axis is inclined at about 26.5 degrees, so this is the angle that the ring system has to its orbital plane (which I guess is what you mean by the "sun's plane"). This angle is fixed (ignoring any precession) so it is always 26.5 degrees, never 17. But it doesn't need to be 17 as that is not what the diagram is showing, nor what I think Berzerker is saying. He's saying that the angle between Saturn and Pluto, relative to Saturn's orbital plane, when both planets are in this particular configuration, is 26.5 degrees as well.

I don't know what you mean by Pluto being in an "opposite" orbit to the one you linked to, I just drew it as it actually is (schematically). It doesn't really matter what angle you view it from, you can mirror the image if you want and pretend you're looking from the other side.

I drew Pluto twice because I'm not clear if Berzerker is talking about this alignment occurring when Pluto is at its maximum height above the ecliptic, or when it's at perihelion, so I just drew it at both positions.

I am fine. Your explanation helped out, thanks. Is Saturn's tilt due to gravitational forces or from impacts? The last Paragraph in my reply was for the whole thread, and I probably should have stated it that way.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

The whole point that you are trying to make is that this is not about science, and we already agreed with you. You asked if there was something wrong with science, and I said, "No". I get that you don't like us comparing the ancient myths with science. That is about the gist that scholars had with Velikovsky. He was a Psychiatrist and a well educated one, and they complained because he was writing about science not in his field of education.

If Velikovsky had wanted to write about astronomy in any way that made use of then-current reality (ie. the laws of physics, real archaeological findings, etc.) instead of making a bunch of stuff up, people wouldn't have complained so much.

Does some degree on the wall make one an expert?

It should be a sign that one has studied and learned, and actually earned that degree in an accredited institution that's neither a diploma mill nor faith-based. My doctor has some diplomas on the wall in her office. But I'm the one who had to research a couple of my own medical conditions and shove that research under her nose before she agreed to have me tested (the tests proved I was right). So while she's right about most things, there were a couple of things she was wrong about - and they were doozies.

One has to study to get that degree.

Usually. It's amazing, though, how many people have "honorary" degrees and are treated as though they actually put in the work and study to honestly earn them.

It is usually practice and peer review of testing and re-testing that makes a paper accepted. I get all off that. What I do not get is the violent attacks on a person's character and work, just because they say something that goes against another person's opinion. That is all peer review is. Everybody agrees that one opinion is right and all others are wrong. Most just shrug their shoulders, say ok , and move on. They don't take it personally, they just keep trying and hope to make the next big break through.

What "violent" attacks?

I cannot speak for Berzerker, but I am not trying to change every one's opinion, nor really saying any one is wrong. When it comes to cosmology, they have to put something in print that we currently agree on, but no one has made a concrete final authoritative dogmatic statement that scientist have discovered exactly what happened. It is still a work in progress.

Honestly, the impression you've given for the past 85 pages is that your opinions are all over the map and then some. The only place where they don't appear to be is grounded in what we currently know to be either true or at least a reasonable assumption, given the evidence (or lack thereof in the case of extraordinary claims). "How do YOU know?" and "Were YOU there?" are unacceptable, and really obnoxious. I saw a video a long while ago in which children were being taught the "were you there" line, and told to say it in the snide tone of voice that would have had me slapped if I'd ever used that tone to an adult.

If some Babylonian educated people thought there was a planet, and the majority (like to day) refused to acknowledge it, because it did not make sense to them, there will be no record of it in history, as something that got passed down as relative for future generations. Now you claim that humans should have some record or evidence, yet toss out the only evidence there is as just being some mythology. So there you go, there is evidence, but not to your liking.

You still don't get it. They didn't have telescopes, so they couldn't have known about planets such as Neptune and Pluto. The fact that some astronomical objects were later named after ancient gods doesn't mean the people who named the ancient gods actually knew the astronomical objects existed.

And don't even start on aliens. There isn't a shred of evidence - nothing at all - that proves there were ever aliens who told the Babylonians about planets and moons they couldn't possibly have seen.

You claim there are mountains of evidence that "claims" we are wrong.

What I said was that there isn't any evidence that you're right.

All I have said is that I agree, and it is all in the interpretation, just like you interpret the Bible and any other myths as being wrong. I am not even claiming your mountains of evidence is wrong. I have just not seen any that convinces me that your interpretation is acceptable. Evidence technically makes no claims. It is just there to be interpreted.

What "mountains of evidence" are you talking about?

 

[Berzerker]

I think this is what Berzerker is talking about. When Pluto is at its maximum height above the ecliptic, or at perihelion (not sure which as these don't coincide, so that's why I drew two Plutos), AND when it's in opposition to Saturn, then the plane of Saturn's rings intersects with Pluto.
View attachment 455859
Looking at a few numbers on Wikipedia and doing a bit of trigonometry shows that he might be right. Or at least in the right ballpark, though I'd be surprised if it's an exact match.

Unfortunately there's no evidence that this is anything other than a (not particularly massive) coincidence, nor is there any obvious orbital mechanism as to how this could signify anything anyway.

I also thought I'd google "Saturn's rings point to Pluto" and see if I could find other people talking about this and maybe drawing better diagrams. The only relevant hit I got was... Berzerker talking about the same thing 12 years ago.

Thank you... Time sure flies. While I assume precession has an effect, Saturn and Pluto share ascending nodes. That means they climb above the ecliptic on a similar longitude. And if we subtract Saturn's distance from the sun (~9.5 au) from Pluto's extreme's (49 au and 29 au) we get a 2:1 ratio.

 

[Arakhor]

Why are you treating Saturn's orbital distance as if it's fixed? It varies from 9-10 AU, just as all the orbital bodies do. If you're taking an average, why aren't you treating Pluto's as 39 AU?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Thank you... Time sure flies. While I assume precession has an effect, Saturn and Pluto share ascending nodes. That means they climb above the ecliptic on a similar longitude. And if we subtract Saturn's distance from the sun (~9.5 au) from Pluto's extreme's (49 au and 29 au) we get a 2:1 ratio.

Well they don't share EXACTLY the same ascending node, there's a few degrees of difference. Jupiter is also not that far off. But what does that signify when they have completely different inclinations, eccentricities, radius etc? The ascending nodes of Mercury and Mars are a much closer match, but so what? And what do you propose is the significance of the (approximate) 2:1 ratio?

 

[Perfection]

Why are we so sure that the earth was not a fifth gas giant, that combined with another planet? It does not have to be as big, but it could have been the smallest. I am not against expansion, but this model still does not explain a change of orbit for the earth. It just theorizes that the gas giants "migrated" out. The proto-earth along with this mars size planet's attraction could have caused the giant to loose momentum, thus keeping it from migrating like the other 4.

I am not sure we need Nabiru to be the first impact that caused these two planets to chase each other. However when these two did finally combine, it caused the formation of two satellites, that also chased each other and later combined to form the moon. The earth being different than the other four gas giants which actively "grabbed" satellites was "ejecting" them.

Uranus is 14 times the size of Earth. I don't know what the lower mass limit is for a planet to be a gas (or ice) giant, but it seems weird that something as small as Earth should be the result of a gas giant colliding with another planet.

As for your scenario, it's hard for me to analyze to see if it's sane or not. Visuals may be needed. Something to keep in mind is that angular momentum and energy are always conserved in these sorts of interaction. So for a little planet to have a significant impact on the orbit of a bigger planet its own orbit must be even more impacted.

Researchers are trying to explain our water and various ideas were offered once they decided our water probably didn't form here. After considering comets they settled on the asteroid belt where we just happen to find an expanded debris field circling the sun and dividing the snow line - the firmament placed amidst the water. The water below became our seas and the water above is still there in the form of gas, ice and liquid water in and on various asteroids planets and moons.

Those models describe a chaotic period when the migrations of gas giants depopulated the region of asteroids sending some our way. One of those models actually suggests a 5th gas giant was expelled after it crossed the orbits of Saturn and Jupiter one too many times (hmm). The Enuma Elish describes the chaos when the destinies of the gods had not been set, they moved about in their ways troubling Tiamat. Marduk came in, slew Tiamat and established order.

There's more than one way to look at the evidence... It can support different explanations up to a point. Regarding these models, they are attempts to explain the late heavy bombardment and our water. But they all have the same problem - our water is older than the LHB and older than our rock and older than the Moon. It may be even older than the planet, it was present during the accretionary phase. Do any Nice models address this problem?

To my understanding LHB is merely the most recent period of intense cometary bombardment so evidence of water on earth prior to LHB doesn't seem problematic.

One thing I don't get is how exactly the ancients knew this stuff. Do you believe that some sort of alien race figured it out using conventional scientific means and then told the ancient people who threw it into their legends? Or did they learn it some other way?

What do you think of Venus. Do you think it formed like Earth or in a different way? Venus and Earth seem rather similar.

 

[timtofly]

Uranus is 14 times the size of Earth. I don't know what the lower mass limit is for a planet to be a gas (or ice) giant, but it seems weird that something as small as Earth should be the result of a gas giant colliding with another planet.

As for your scenario, it's hard for me to analyze to see if it's sane or not. Visuals may be needed. Something to keep in mind is that angular momentum and energy are always conserved in these sorts of interaction. So for a little planet to have a significant impact on the orbit of a bigger planet its own orbit must be even more impacted.

The latest moon formation simulations seem to work with pairs of planets or planetesimals making impacts as they form. The moon was two parts of the impact between proto earth and a mars like planet. The proto earth and proto mars like planet was the result of one developing Mars planet and a gas planet. While the middle of the sun's disc was split in half, the result was not necessarily a split planet, although that may have happened. The planet(s) during the accretion process immediately after this split was forced to reform into two smaller planets that reformed into the earth and two moons, and the two moons combined into a final moon. The first impact allowed the proto earth and proto mars to get ahead, of what would become the forming Jupiter which was being influenced by the forming Saturn. Jupiter and Saturn were the ones other than Earth who seemed to have changed distances from the sun the most. Saturn was the influence that let the proto earth and mars planets to keep accreting inwards, escaping Jupiter. They were chasing Mars, but then Jupiter pulled Mars back and let earth and the forming moon get closer to the sun.

I think that I understand the accretion process as acting like a plow that was clearing out the material of the sun's disc, in their paths.

My question is if this was happening, would it not effect the way planets are dated? Wouldn't the dating clock start after this process and after all the impacts going on with the larger bodies pulling in the smaller ones, until all gained enough material to hold their own gravitationally controlled orbits? Could this process itself give a "mature" but inaccurate date?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

The latest moon formation simulations seem to work with pairs of planets or planetesimals making impacts as they form. The moon was two parts of the impact between proto earth and a mars like planet. The proto earth and proto mars like planet was the result of one developing Mars planet and a gas planet. While the middle of the sun's disc was split in half, the result was not necessarily a split planet, although that may have happened. The planet(s) during the accretion process immediately after this split was forced to reform into two smaller planets that reformed into the earth and two moons, and the two moons combined into a final moon.

Link, please. I haven't read anything about an extra moon.

The first impact allowed the proto earth and proto mars to get ahead, of what would become the forming Jupiter which was being influenced by the forming Saturn. Jupiter and Saturn were the ones other than Earth who seemed to have changed distances from the sun the most. Saturn was the influence that let the proto earth and mars planets to keep accreting inwards, escaping Jupiter. They were chasing Mars, but then Jupiter pulled Mars back and let earth and the forming moon get closer to the sun.

That was very sportsplanetlike of Jupiter.

What do you mean, "accreting inwards"? Accretion means to attract particles via gravitation to make up a whole; to coalesce. It doesn't mean running around the early Solar System.

 

[timtofly]

Link, please. I haven't read anything about an extra moon.

That was very sportsplanetlike of Jupiter.

What do you mean, "accreting inwards"? Accretion means to attract particles via gravitation to make up a whole; to coalesce. It doesn't mean running around the early Solar System.

This and why would accretion not change an orbital pattern? As a snow ball pickups more material, it gains momentum. Speed and spin effect gravitational fields. That is not a great example but planets are normally spinning because they are gaining material and going in a forward motion that allows them to gain even more material. All the dust and gas spins around the sun, but the forming planets move faster as they gain a larger body, thus catching up to more dust and gas.

 

[Perfection]

The latest moon formation simulations seem to work with pairs of planets or planetesimals making impacts as they form. The moon was two parts of the impact between proto earth and a mars like planet. The proto earth and proto mars like planet was the result of one developing Mars planet and a gas planet. While the middle of the sun's disc was split in half, the result was not necessarily a split planet, although that may have happened. The planet(s) during the accretion process immediately after this split was forced to reform into two smaller planets that reformed into the earth and two moons, and the two moons combined into a final moon. The first impact allowed the proto earth and proto mars to get ahead, of what would become the forming Jupiter which was being influenced by the forming Saturn. Jupiter and Saturn were the ones other than Earth who seemed to have changed distances from the sun the most. Saturn was the influence that let the proto earth and mars planets to keep accreting inwards, escaping Jupiter. They were chasing Mars, but then Jupiter pulled Mars back and let earth and the forming moon get closer to the sun.

I think that I understand the accretion process as acting like a plow that was clearing out the material of the sun's disc, in their paths.

My question is if this was happening, would it not effect the way planets are dated? Wouldn't the dating clock start after this process and after all the impacts going on with the larger bodies pulling in the smaller ones, until all gained enough material to hold their own gravitationally controlled orbits? Could this process itself give a "mature" but inaccurate date?

Is the bolded statement correct? Hard to tell here it's especially difficult because I don't know the initial positions. It would be fun to have the sort of simulators planetary dynamicists use at our disposal. You can view the nice model here: http://www.skyandtelescope.com/sky-...printed-page/chaos-in-the-early-solar-system/

I think the plow analogy is kind of a crap one. Remember, everything is orbiting, the dust, the gas, the protoplanets. They're all oscillators that can be in phase or out of phase with each other. Everything is constantly pulling on everything else, you can't say that Jupiter started pulling on Mars because the stuff that made Jupiter was always pulling on the stuff that made Mars even before Jupiter and Mars were formed.

You might enjoy that there's actually an ancient idea of musica universalis to describe the harmonies of celestial motion. Planetary formation is like that minus the harmony part - maybe a band practicing out back in the garage. Do bear in mind, I'm not an expert on solar system dynamics but this strikes me as a better analogy.

You can't really date a planet You can date rocks and parts of rocks. Then from there you make your estimates but that's an interpretative step. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldest_dated_rocks is a good starting place

 

[Valka D'Ur]

This and why would accretion not change an orbital pattern? As a snow ball pickups more material, it gains momentum. Speed and spin effect gravitational fields. That is not a great example but planets are normally spinning because they are gaining material and going in a forward motion that allows them to gain even more material. All the dust and gas spins around the sun, but the forming planets move faster as they gain a larger body, thus catching up to more dust and gas.

The article doesn't say anything about an extra moon.

The theory says that proto-Earth was clobbered by another proto-planet (named Theia). Part of Earth was combined with part of Theia to form the Moon.

And why do you keep insisting that Earth used to be a gas giant? That's another thing that went unmentioned in every astronomy class I've ever taken.

 

[timtofly]

The article doesn't say anything about an extra moon.

The theory says that proto-Earth was clobbered by another proto-planet (named Theia). Part of Earth was combined with part of Theia to form the Moon.

And why do you keep insisting that Earth used to be a gas giant? That's another thing that went unmentioned in every astronomy class I've ever taken.

You have to watch the first video. It is kind of hard to get the picture of a huge impact. There were two impacts: the one that caused the moon, and the one that caused certain condition on the moon like the largest impact site on the moon that faces us. Some say a smaller object hit the moon, some say a huge object hit the moon. It is science you can pick which model you like or just wait till they get one that every one likes.

I just post what I have read. Some say there have been hundreds of earths, even larger than earth is now, over the last 4 billion years of accretion. Other say the accretion happened in a few dozen million years or a few hundred million years. It is a constantly changing field of research.

Is the bolded statement correct? Hard to tell here it's especially difficult because I don't know the initial positions. It would be fun to have the sort of simulators planetary dynamicists use at our disposal. You can view the nice model here: http://www.skyandtelescope.com/sky-...printed-page/chaos-in-the-early-solar-system/

I think the plow analogy is kind of a crap one. Remember, everything is orbiting, the dust, the gas, the protoplanets. They're all oscillators that can be in phase or out of phase with each other. Everything is constantly pulling on everything else, you can't say that Jupiter started pulling on Mars because the stuff that made Jupiter was always pulling on the stuff that made Mars even before Jupiter and Mars were formed.

You might enjoy that there's actually an ancient idea of musica universalis to describe the harmonies of celestial motion. Planetary formation is like that minus the harmony part - maybe a band practicing out back in the garage. Do bear in mind, I'm not an expert on solar system dynamics but this strikes me as a better analogy.

You can't really date a planet You can date rocks and parts of rocks. Then from there you make your estimates but that's an interpretative step. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldest_dated_rocks is a good starting place

I would agree that a plow is not that grand, but in the simulations they have not worked out the 3D aspect, and the point where these planetesimals are attracting all the dust and gas around them. The rendition models still look like a plow.

The music of the spheres.

The asteroid belt being not quite in the middle, but in the middle for how the 8 major planets are portrayed. The whole disk started out allegedly at 200 Au in diameter. I just re-read the Almagest, and Ptolemy was almost there. He talked as if the earth was in the "middle", but was convinced that it did not spin. He pointed out it was a sphere, but because he allowed it no spin, it was the center. Why would he go from the middle to the center and then place the sun in the middle instead of the center? It seems that if he would have allowed it some spin, he would have eventually figured out that the sun was in the center, and the earth was in the middle. His argument was that if the earth was spinning, that things on the surface would fall off, and that birds in flight would be left behind. He did the math to calculate the speed of the other planets. Then declared the earth would have to have the fastest spin of all. But that was because it was in the center, and not the middle. If I remember correctly all the other planets and the sun he claimed did spin and some even had tilted axis. He also did not think the earth was on a tilted axis. It was the spinning and tilt of the other planets that explained the phenomenon. He said it was possible for the earth to have a tilt, but because the earth did not spin, it did not need one.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

You have to watch the first video. It is kind of hard to get the picture of a huge impact. There were two impacts: the one that caused the moon, and the one that caused certain condition on the moon like the largest impact site on the moon that faces us. Some say a smaller object hit the moon, some say a huge object hit the moon. It is science you can pick which model you like or just wait till they get one that every one likes.

In that case I'll have to wait until my Win 8.1 computer gets fixed. I'm using an XP now, and it doesn't do videos that aren't YouTube (and even those are really slow and choppy).

I just post what I have read. Some say there have been hundreds of earths, even larger than earth is now, over the last 4 billion years of accretion.

"Hundreds" of Earths??? O-kay, so where did all the others go? Are you saying that they all got clobbered and re-formed?

Other say the accretion happened in a few dozen million years or a few hundred million years. It is a constantly changing field of research.

Earth is still collecting dust from space. Literally. Every single day.

 

[Berzerker]

Why are you treating Saturn's orbital distance as if it's fixed? It varies from 9-10 AU, just as all the orbital bodies do. If you're taking an average, why aren't you treating Pluto's as 39 AU?

The symbol ~ does not mean fixed, it means about, close to, plus or minus, or approximately. The small difference between Saturn's extremes is tiny in comparison to Pluto and the point involves a possible relationship between Saturn and Pluto's perihelion and aphelion which the average doesn't address.

Well they don't share EXACTLY the same ascending node, there's a few degrees of difference.

I said they had similar ascending nodes

But what does that signify when they have completely different inclinations, eccentricities, radius etc? The ascending nodes of Mercury and Mars are a much closer match, but so what? And what do you propose is the significance of the (approximate) 2:1 ratio?

Maybe its nothing, precession might make it an irrelevant observation but if Pluto left Saturn both were close to the ecliptic when it happened.

http://cseligman.com/text/sky/orbits.htm

In the 4th diagram down Pluto's orbit is compared to a circle... Saturn would be at the center of that circle. When Pluto is at aphelion its 40 au from Saturn, when its at perihelion on the other side of the sun its 40 au from Saturn. These are just guestimates of course, Pluto orbits the sun instead of Saturn. Its possible Pluto left Saturn heading for its aphelion below the ecliptic and not perihelion above.

To my understanding LHB is merely the most recent period of intense cometary bombardment so evidence of water on earth prior to LHB doesn't seem problematic.

One thing I don't get is how exactly the ancients knew this stuff. Do you believe that some sort of alien race figured it out using conventional scientific means and then told the ancient people who threw it into their legends? Or did they learn it some other way?

What do you think of Venus. Do you think it formed like Earth or in a different way? Venus and Earth seem rather similar.

Venus is about the same size, but comparisons end there. Its basically upside down and not spinning. Well, its year is shorter than its day. Ancient peoples credited their gods or the sky people as their culture bearers and teachers. What is problematic is the water forming here... Current theory says our water formed further from the sun, and if it turns out the Earth formed in the presence of water, then the Earth formed further away too.