In the Beginning...

[Berzerker]

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)

The link I provided showed the following: our water formed at the asteroid belt and the Earth may have formed in the presence of water. Thats evidence the Earth might have formed at the asteroid belt. You disagree... Oh well. I'm happy to see someone explain how the Earth formed here when our water formed out there.

And please stop referring to him and me in derogatory ways. He's a fellow forum member on two sites, and on one of them he has a thread on cosmology. It's interesting, and that's the end of it. We're not conspiring, we're not "buddies," and his decision to post here was his own.

Calling him your buddy is derogatory? Against you or him? I do enjoy the lectures on civility interspersed with insults.

So in addition to metal bracelets scattered out there, you're saying there are fish there, too? It's amazing that none of the Pioneer or Voyager probes ran into this stuff.

You took anthropology and you're unfamiliar with the use of metaphor in myth? According to the Enuma Elish Heaven and Earth were roughly similar in mass.

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.

How many times does it take for Saturn's equatorial plane to line up with Pluto?

This may be what it all comes down to for you, but the rest of us (okay, maybe timtofly accepts your notion; it's rather difficult to tell by this point since the goalposts have been moved enough to account for a whole season of hockey) would like independent corroboration. Show us a link to ANYTHING from a reputable astronomical journal that supports your claim.

Where have I moved goalposts?

So now we've not only got bracelets and fish littering the asteroid belt, but somehow Polaris is involved with this? Polaris is over 400 light-years from here, so why is it even relevant?

It isn't relevant

I did notice that you posted the link to a Wikipedia article about the Roche Limit. Didn't you read it?

I didn't post a link to the Roche limit

IF any of that nonsense were true, where did that life come from?

An earlier solar system

 

[Berzerker]

The moons of the gas giants are interesting, seems they can fit into several categories - the main moons in prograde equatorial orbits, a 2nd group of smaller irregular prograde moons with inclinations ranging from ~30-55 degrees, and then the more abundant retrograde moons with inclinations ranging from 130-175 degrees.

What could have caused so many moons to be captured into inclined retrograde orbits?

 

[Perfection]

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.

For the record there's some water on Venus though not on as much on Earth. But debating on those points seems uninteresting. Though it would be interesting to know if you a have specific account for Venus's formation.

Also. I asked this question earlier: "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?"

I'm much more interested in that question because that's the part with the space aliens.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

The link I provided showed the following: our water formed at the asteroid belt and the Earth may have formed in the presence of water. Thats evidence the Earth might have formed at the asteroid belt. You disagree... Oh well. I'm happy to see someone explain how the Earth formed here when our water formed out there.

It might be evidence for you. But not one single astronomer anywhere seems to agree with you to the point where they're willing to state in a published journal article: "Earth formed in the asteroid belt." Or at least none that I've been able to find.

Calling him your buddy is derogatory? Against you or him? I do enjoy the lectures on civility interspersed with insults.

Oh, please. You phrased it "yer buddy." Yes, that's derogatory. And yes, you've referred to me in other derogatory terms. When you're referring to me in posts addressed to other people, it's appropriate to use my name.

Lorizael and I are fellow forum members, aka acquaintances. I find his posts interesting, but we don't discuss personal stuff.

You took anthropology and you're unfamiliar with the use of metaphor in myth? According to the Enuma Elish Heaven and Earth were roughly similar in mass.

Heaven is an imaginary concept made up by humans who couldn't face the idea of nonexistence/non-consciousness after death. It is not, and never was, a real place. So to claim that it has any mass at all is ridiculous.

I told you that most of what I studied in my cultural anthropology courses had to do with the native North Americans. I'm sure you're aware that Babylon was in the Middle East, not North America.

Where have I moved goalposts?

Re-read my post. I said that timtofly has been moving goalposts.

It isn't relevant

Then why bother to mention it?

I didn't post a link to the Roche limit

I asked if you knew how Saturn's rings were formed (the real reason, not this mythological claptrap). You posted a link to a Wikipedia article that explained the Roche Limit. Your later posts made me think that you hadn't actually bothered to read the Wikipedia article.

An earlier solar system

And, like the turtles, it's "an earlier solar system all the way down," I suppose.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

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.

Erm... this is not true. Even restricting it to the single sentence about snowballs... that's not true either. You know, as in this is just totally wrong.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

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.

Don't think any of your reasoning here is sound at all.

 

[timtofly]

Erm... this is not true. Even restricting it to the single sentence about snowballs... that's not true either. You know, as in this is just totally wrong.

I never claimed it was right, just the way it looks to me. It would be nice to hear a concise example, that I could understand, but all I get is, it is wrong. I suppose nobody actually knows, but give it their best shot.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I never claimed it was right, just the way it looks to me. It would be nice to hear a concise example, that I could understand, but all I get is, it is wrong. I suppose nobody actually knows, but give it their best shot.

Alright well...

As a snow ball pickups more material, it gains momentum.

I presume you're referring to the phenomenon of a snowball rolling down a hill, picking up speed and more snow at the same time. The snow ball is gaining speed because it's falling into a gravitational well and converting its gravitational potential energy into kinetic energy. At the same time it's picking up extra snow and gaining mass because it's... sticky I guess. But the two things are just happening at the same time, they're not directly related. A snowball rolling down a smooth plane with no snow would also speed up. A snowball rolling along flat ground, or even rolling up a hill, with snow on it would pick up extra snow, but slow down. When it's rolling downhill it's not gaining momentum* FROM the extra snow, it's just doing both.

(*might as well address this here too. You could argue that it does technically gain momentum from the extra snow since momentum is a product of the mass and the velocity. However, you seem to be using "momentum" just as a synonym for velocity here.)

Speed and spin effect gravitational fields.

Unless you're dealing with relativistic speeds or spinning black holes or something, no they don't.

Planets are normally spinning because they are gaining material and going in a forward motion that allows them to gain even more material.

Not even really sure what you mean by this. Planets are normally spinning because they maintain the net angular momentum of all the debris they form from, which is itself in the form of a rotating disc. So in a sense it's because they're "gaining material", but the way you word it makes it seem like you're saying something else here.

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 forming planets don't move any faster than the gas and dust they share an orbit with.

(As an aside, it seems very odd to post a series of statements about how something works, as if you are stating facts, and then to say "I never claimed I was right". True, you didn't explicitly add "... and when I say all this I am right" to the end of it, but surely it was implied?)

 

[timtofly]

Alright well...

I presume you're referring to the phenomenon of a snowball rolling down a hill, picking up speed and more snow at the same time. The snow ball is gaining speed because it's falling into a gravitational well and converting its gravitational potential energy into kinetic energy. At the same time it's picking up extra snow and gaining mass because it's... sticky I guess. But the two things are just happening at the same time, they're not directly related. A snowball rolling down a smooth plane with no snow would also speed up. A snowball rolling along flat ground, or even rolling up a hill, with snow on it would pick up extra snow, but slow down. When it's rolling downhill it's not gaining momentum* FROM the extra snow, it's just doing both.

(*might as well address this here too. You could argue that it does technically gain momentum from the extra snow since momentum is a product of the mass and the velocity. However, you seem to be using "momentum" just as a synonym for velocity here.)

Unless you're dealing with relativistic speeds or spinning black holes or something, no they don't.

Not even really sure what you mean by this. Planets are normally spinning because they maintain the net angular momentum of all the debris they form from, which is itself in the form of a rotating disc. So in a sense it's because they're "gaining material", but the way you word it makes it seem like you're saying something else here.

The forming planets don't move any faster than the gas and dust they share an orbit with.

(As an aside, it seems very odd to post a series of statements about how something works, as if you are stating facts, and then to say "I never claimed I was right". True, you didn't explicitly add "... and when I say all this I am right" to the end of it, but surely it was implied?)

I am not sure what to say, other than you seem to know more about than I do. I barely know what the word accretion means, but that is what is used when I read about it. I guess when they put it in a report or Encyclopedia, they assume whoever reads it knows everything about it. I am not sure that I have implied that I am right in the whole thread. I have pointed out where posters are wrong just like every other poster here. I assume that every poster in the thread thinks they are right, but I thought it was understood that my post are those of a skeptic and not an expert.

I understand planets are not like snowballs, but I was looking at a snowball that has no connection to a slope of any kind. Would not planets be the enablers of their own growth?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Yes, as they get larger they attract more and more material and grow larger still. But this process doesn't make them orbit any faster or gain momentum as such.

 

[timtofly]

I am not sure the goal was to move faster, but to grow larger faster?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I can only reply to what was said and you said "planets move faster as they gain a larger body". You can't ask me to tell you what you meant to say...

 

[timtofly]

I think we were explaining how some think the gas giants gathered up the most dust and gas, and move between positions closer to the sun and then further away. While the earth seemed to be in the same orbital path as another planet (about the size of Mars). While not looking at it like a billiard table. Seems snowballs don't replace billiard balls either.

 

[Berzerker]

http://phys.org/news/2016-10-curious-tilt-sun-undiscovered-planet.html

"It continues to amaze us; every time we look carefully we continue to find that Planet Nine explains something about the solar system that had long been a mystery"

"The tilt of the solar system's orbital plane has long befuddled astronomers"

 

[Berzerker]

For the record there's some water on Venus though not on as much on Earth. But debating on those points seems uninteresting. Though it would be interesting to know if you a have specific account for Venus's formation.

Also. I asked this question earlier: "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?"

I'm much more interested in that question because that's the part with the space aliens.

Ancient peoples credited their 'gods' from the sky or culture bearers from distant, unknown lands. As for Venus, I figure it accreted like most everything else in the solar system. But it does appear something smacked it hard enough to produce an upside down world without spin. Venus should be a dry planet if it formed that close to the sun. Thats true for Earth too... But Venus and Mars obtained water during the late heavy bombardment. That was our water, we lost it and they gained some.

 

[Berzerker]

It might be evidence for you. But not one single astronomer anywhere seems to agree with you to the point where they're willing to state in a published journal article: "Earth formed in the asteroid belt." Or at least none that I've been able to find.

Earth might have formed at the asteroid belt... How many astronomers say thats impossible?

Oh, please. You phrased it "yer buddy." Yes, that's derogatory.

Why?

And yes, you've referred to me in other derogatory terms. When you're referring to me in posts addressed to other people, it's appropriate to use my name.

I said Lori was your buddy, how is that derogatory? What are these derogatory terms?

Heaven is an imaginary concept made up by humans who couldn't face the idea of nonexistence/non-consciousness after death. It is not, and never was, a real place. So to claim that it has any mass at all is ridiculous.

The authors of the Enuma Elish likened the creation of Heaven and Earth to the splitting of a flatfish.

Then why bother to mention it?

I didn't, somebody else mentioned it and I responded to them.

I asked if you knew how Saturn's rings were formed (the real reason, not this mythological claptrap). You posted a link to a Wikipedia article that explained the Roche Limit. Your later posts made me think that you hadn't actually bothered to read the Wikipedia article.

The link was not to the Roche limit, but what did I say to make you think that?

And, like the turtles, it's "an earlier solar system all the way down," I suppose.

Why not?

 

[Perfection]

Ancient peoples credited their 'gods' from the sky or culture bearers from distant, unknown lands.

And those Gods being aliens from outer space?

 

[mrt144]

What is even going on in this thread?

 

[Perfection]

Damned if I know

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Earth might have formed at the asteroid belt... How many astronomers say thats impossible?

That's not the point. The point is that you have failed, over the past 87 pages, to produce a link to even one astronomer who will confirm your idea that Earth formed in the asteroid belt.

Why?

"Yer buddy Lori" is a snide way to phrase it when I've told you - several times - that I mentioned this thread to an acquaintance on another forum who has more current knowledge than I do regarding cosmology (at least I have to assume that, since he's currently taking astronomy in university and my last formal astronomy class was a long while ago). I would have been delighted if he'd said, "Berzerker is right, and here is a list of links that confirm it." It would have saved a considerable amount of arguing if he had been able to do that.

But no such links were forthcoming, either from him (because he's got more integrity than to point me toward some tabloid website) or from you (because... I really don't know why you won't either provide the links I asked for or just admit that there aren't any).

As I said, I didn't ask Lorizael to post in this thread. I hadn't even realized he was a member here until I saw his post. So please stop with this "yer buddy Lori" stuff. That's a mischaracterization, and I'm more than tired of it. I like Lorizael as an interesting poster, but you're making this out to be something it isn't.

I said Lori was your buddy, how is that derogatory? What are these derogatory terms?

You're familiar with the phrase "It's not so much what you say, but how you say it"? Your tone is snide. So that's why I used the word "derogatory."

The authors of the Enuma Elish likened the creation of Heaven and Earth to the splitting of a flatfish.

You said Heaven and Earth have the same (or almost the same) mass. I don't see any mention in that of flatfish (although by this point I wouldn't be surprised if there's going to be a mention of the kitchen sink fairly soon).

The link was not to the Roche limit, but what did I say to make you think that?

This post: http://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/in-the-beginning.568762/page-79#post-14493644

You linked to this article: Ring System. The article mentions the Roche Limit. Didn't you read it? Evidently not...

Why not?

Because that's ridiculous. There were not an infinite number of Solar Systems here. The one we have is the only one.

What is even going on in this thread?

It's similar to the "Ask an Atlanteologist" thread from awhile back. The difference is that the OP for that one took off and never came back when the questions got too awkward.

This one is like the Energizer Bunny who prefers pseudoscience to the real thing, and thinks evidence is whatever Zecharias Sitchin and his fans make up.