Planet Once Between Mars and Jupiter?

[Perfection]

Maybe the asteroid belt was formed of Asteroids, space junk and meteors from other solar systems caught in our suns gravity?

Doesn't seem likely for the following reasons:
1. Radiometric evidence suggests that asteroids are around 4.6 billion years old which corresponds with the formation of the solar system.
2. They're in nice pretty circular orbits, if it came from another system you'd expect them to be in crazy elliptical orbits like comets.

Just on an interesting note, in the early 19th century the asteroids Ceres Pallas Vesta and Juno were considered planets. That was until a whole bunch more were discovered.

 

[Ultima Dragoon]

Just on an interesting note, in the early 19th century the asteroids Ceres Pallas Vesta and Juno were considered planets. That was until a whole bunch more were discovered.

That would probably be because they had no set standard as to what a planet was.

 

[Gogf]

That would probably be because they had no set standard as to what a planet was.

Um... We don't either.

(See the "What is a planet?" thread.)

 

[Perfection]

That would probably be because they had no set standard as to what a planet was.

Indeed. The first definition of planet included the sun and moon! The one including the asteroids worked at first because for a long while no more were found, eventually though, so many were discovered that it became apparent that this definition didn't work.

 

[Ultima Dragoon]

Um... We don't either.

We have a basic understanding of what a planet actually is.

They thought that Venus was a utopia.

We really need to get a proper def of a planet, stat!

*orders personal techno-magi to searchh for a definition*

 

[The Last Conformist]

Indeed. The first definition of planet included the sun and moon! The one including the asteroids worked at first because for a long while no more were found, eventually though, so many were discovered that it became apparent that this definition didn't work.

Even better, the draconitic points (the intersections between the apparent lunar path and the ecliptica) were sometimes considered planets, because they migrate around the ecliptica.

Not only does the asteroid belt contain way too little stuff to make a decent planet, much of it also consists of carbonaceous stuff that's decidedly un-planetary in composition. There can't be any real doubt that it represents leftover junk from the early days of the solar system.

 

[Dreadnought]

Not only does the asteroid belt contain way too little stuff to make a decent planet, much of it also consists of carbonaceous stuff that's decidedly un-planetary in composition. There can't be any real doubt that it represents leftover junk from the early days of the solar system.

The asteroid belt contains only about 10% of the stuff it once had....the rest was thrown into space because of Jupiter's gravity.

 

[Smidlee]

There an article that debate this idea on www.metaresearch.org
Using a formula it seems there could have been a planet between Mars and Jupiter. It's possible I guess.

 

[EquinoxOmega]

There hasn't been a planet between Mars and Jupiter, because Jupiter has to much mass. His gravitions avoids the formation of a planet at this orbit(due to desturbition theory). There could have formed a planet, but now you can only see remaints of this planetesimals from the early years of the solar system.

This fits in all other other (official) theories of the solar system and could also be succesfully simulated on computers.

 

[The Last Conformist]

The asteroid belt contains only about 10% of the stuff it once had....the rest was thrown into space because of Jupiter's gravity.

If true, that would make for an original total mass of less than half the moons' mass.

 

[Ultima Dragoon]

There hasn't been a planet between Mars and Jupiter, because Jupiter has to much mass. His gravitions avoids the formation of a planet at this orbit(due to desturbition theory). There could have formed a planet, but now you can only see remaints of this planetesimals from the early years of the solar system.

Perfection has already put forward this theory.

I am much more inclined to believe it to be leftovers from planetary formation.

The only thing that seems off is that thre is only about 2% of the mass of the moon in space junk between Mars and Jupiter. Not enough for even a small planet.

 

[Perfection]

There an article that debate this idea on www.metaresearch.org
Using a formula it seems there could have been a planet between Mars and Jupiter. It's possible I guess.

Interesting theory, though it does seem to contradict the evidence for the Giant Impact (Big Whack) Theory. The use of Iapetus as evidence seems rather dubious because the darker regions correspond with its orbital trajectory as if it swept through a debris field, while an explosion could occur at an angle, it makes for a rather interesting coincidence.

And of course it doesn't account for radiometric evidence that the asteroid belt is about 9 times older than .5 billion years

 

[Perfection]

The only thing that seems off is that thre is only about 2% of the mass of the moon in space junk between Mars and Jupiter. Not enough for even a small planet.

Well, I've heard it's a bit more (but still in the single percent of the moon). I would suppose that a large portion the debris there would've migrated elsewhere, perhaps becoming part of Jupiter, or being ejected from the solar system during the solar system's formative years.

 

[Ultima Dragoon]

Yeah, but like TLC said:

If true, that would make for an original total mass of less than half the moons' mass.

Maybe the planet was hollow or made of extremely light materials?

 

[Perfection]

Who says there was a planet?

And a hallow planet is ludicris

 

[Ultima Dragoon]

A holy planet?

Oh, you ment hollow.

I'm just putting forth ideas

 

[Oerdin]

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980810a.html