Thread: birth of planets

hi all i subscribed here to talk with you about my thinkings.
Here i have one that seems to me really unchangeable:

" Moon is created by centrifugal force, by the hot fluid rotating mass of earth, like earth from sun, like sun from the center of galaxy"

Have another one by a friend of mine.." pangea has never been existed...
the continents are just the result of a small ball that expands ..and leaves space that will be filled of water between the plates of crust...like t happens today..."

have another one by a secret contributor.. "Wind rotates faster than earth...
Inversion of direction of prevailing winds in the middle latitudes between 30 and 60 degrees latitude, and cycle of glaciations.
That seems to be involved with gravitational friction by sun on earth's gaseous mass.
Possible prevention of glaciation ? "

Welcome to the forum N+. May I suggest, before I have to request, that you slow up a little with your posting rate. Wait to see what responses you get and how the threads you have started develop.

Originally Posted by N+

" Moon is created by centrifugal force, by the hot fluid rotating mass of earth, like earth from sun, like sun from the center of galaxy"

The sun was not created by spinning of from the centre of the galaxy by centrifugal force. Rather it condensed from a collapsing cloud of gas and dust, this collapse probably initiated by shockwaves from a nearby supernova. The Earth did not spin off from the sun by centrifugal force, but was formed by the coming together of material in the accretion disc surrounding the proto-sun. The moon did not spin off by centrifugal force from the Earth, though at one time that was mistakenly thought to be a possibility. It formed as the result of a collision of a Mars sized planetesimal with the early Earth.

Have another one by a friend of mine.." pangea has never been existed...
the continents are just the result of a small ball that expands ..and leaves space that will be filled of water between the plates of crust...like t happens today..."

How does this friend of your's get the idea that the earth is expanding and measurable movement of the tectonic plate does not happen?

ok.. the argument emerged because i told him about the birth of moon from earth.. and i was supposing that pangea would have been the rest of the "cone of material" tthat linked the 2 flaming balls detaching..
then ..he tols me ..why pangea?? when the ocean dorsal thing explanes yet the situation , of a little ball expanding in time ??

I think you have a misconception about the formation of the moon after an impact of a body that was - according to calculations - roughly th esize of Mars. It is not that this thing hit earth and there was a BAAAANG! and the Moon detatched from earth, some oceans sloshing around and the leaftovers can still be seen today. This thing came close to anihilating the Earth alltogether, the whole mess was molten and came close to ending like the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Welcome to the forum N+. May I suggest, before I have to request, that you slow up a little with your posting rate. Wait to see what responses you get and how the threads you have started develop.

Originally Posted by N+

" Moon is created by centrifugal force, by the hot fluid rotating mass of earth, like earth from sun, like sun from the center of galaxy"

The sun was not created by spinning of from the centre of the galaxy by centrifugal force. Rather it condensed from a collapsing cloud of gas and dust, this collapse probably initiated by shockwaves from a nearby supernova. The Earth did not spin off from the sun by centrifugal force, but was formed by the coming together of material in the accretion disc surrounding the proto-sun. The moon did not spin off by centrifugal force from the Earth, though at one time that was mistakenly thought to be a possibility. It formed as the result of a collision of a Mars sized planetesimal with the early Earth.

finished to post my topics before i forget some.. sorry for disturb !

so moons of planets and the saturn rings?? has not been a machine gun??? all on the same axis.. , and on the same axis of rotation and revolutionb???
too much coincidences.. really i cant understand your vision that is , as i know the actual main vision

Originally Posted by Twaaannnggg

I think you have a misconception about the formation of the moon after an impact of a body that was - according to calculations - roughly th esize of Mars. It is not that this thing hit earth and there was a BAAAANG! and the Moon detatched from earth, some oceans sloshing around and the leaftovers can still be seen today. This thing came close to anihilating the Earth alltogether, the whole mess was molten and came close to ending like the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter.

SORRY EVRYBODY if anything was htting the earth , the new gravitic system would not be in orbit on the sun..
like it is a moon-earth gravitic system that behaviors like a splitted single object system.. if there would be external touch the result would be inside the sun or outside the starsystem

Originally Posted by N+

SORRY EVRYBODY if anything was htting the earth , the new gravitic system would not be in orbit on the sun..
like it is a moon-earth gravitic system that behaviors like a splitted single object system.. if there would be external touch the result would be inside the sun or outside the starsystem

Can you show me this data??

N+; Those that feel the moon was from parts of the earth or that it came from mars or for that matter formed independently, all are in the first years of the Solar System. Then the planets would have been soft in comparison to today, possibly still in a near gaseous state.

The earth scenario, is based on the current moon orbit, which is slowly increasing from earth, couple inches per year and in reversing this movement would have been it about 25k miles when formed and now about 240k miles out there....

You friend, is probably taking *Big Bang Theory* and incorperating some thought. The theory, involves an expanding universe. If you accept that all matter, as well as space itself is expanding (BTT suggest space, not matter), then that scenario could be possible. The problem here, would be our solar system is relatively new (4.5 billion years) to the Universe itself (13.7 to 15 billion years) and if plate tectonics is correct, not enough time could have passed to expand the planet that much.

Originally Posted by Twaaannnggg

Originally Posted by N+

SORRY EVRYBODY if anything was htting the earth , the new gravitic system would not be in orbit on the sun..
like it is a moon-earth gravitic system that behaviors like a splitted single object system.. if there would be external touch the result would be inside the sun or outside the starsystem

Can you show me this data??

sure.. start from a balanced system..objects in stable orbit around the sun..
if anything big would touch or even go near.. the trajectory would be unfixably damaged.. the object would start making strange trajectories around the sun in the centuries.. having to result in a escape from the sun or in a dive in the sun...
related argument: an object posed ina stable orbit of a sun by a magic hand, starts spinning for gravitational friction..with the sun!

Originally Posted by N+

Originally Posted by Twaaannnggg

Originally Posted by N+

SORRY EVRYBODY if anything was htting the earth , the new gravitic system would not be in orbit on the sun..
like it is a moon-earth gravitic system that behaviors like a splitted single object system.. if there would be external touch the result would be inside the sun or outside the starsystem

Can you show me this data??

sure.. start from a balanced system..objects in stable orbit around the sun..
if anything big would touch or even go near.. the trajectory would be unfixably damaged.. the object would start making strange trajectories around the sun in the centuries.. having to result in a escape from the sun or in a dive in the sun...
related argument: an object posed ina stable orbit of a sun by a magic hand, starts spinning for gravitational friction..with the sun!

then if u want to think about
how objects can reach quite perfect orbits around a sun.. then i can clean my pocket calculator !!

Before the earth was hit by the mars sized object that helped in the creation of the moon, was it circling the sun a lot closer? I ask this because i would think that with a 20% increase in mass, the earths pull away from the sun may increase. It just seems strange that you could increase the mass of a planet to such a degree without affecting its rotation around the sun.

So you think, for example, the space shuttle should orbit further out than an astronaut. And therefore, that a heavy object should fall at a different velocity from a light one. And therefore that Galileo was wrong. (You're not a Catholic Cardinal are you?)

No, i just thought if the mass of an object increases then its gravitational strength would increase, i thought this was why why the moon has 1/6th (i think) the gravity of earth. So, i thought because of that, the suns gravitational effect on the Earth would alter if the Earth became more massive. I wasnt talking about falling. More if say, the moons mass was suddenly increased by 20%, would that not effect its orbit of the earth? I mean surely if the moon became AS massive as the earth that would have an effect on its orbit of earth, wouldnt it? :?

yeah growling !! or a "magic" change of mass or a so big touch or a so big object passing near and providing a gravitational pull, would give the planet a change of orbit that coul not be rescued to another stable orbit, within some big activity of some future gravitational device !
i could say.. the orbits of planets are not self fixing !!!

if u could artificially change the orbit of a planet u need
>>>> 2 moves <<<<<
1st the strike to push away from actual orbit..
2nd the strike to fix new trajectory and put the obj in the new orbit..

i want to suggest also that only crashings of objects with vectors of velocity that are on the same 2D plane of objects of a solar system, would lead to new trajectories that would not have changing in "horizon angle " form the central mass. i think soon we should talk about formulas !

This was also why i thought that the only planets that we have found outside our solar system were the massive ones that created a discernible wobble in the star they are orbiting. I guess i figured if massive planets have a more pronounced effect on the star, then mite a change in mass affect its orbit. Or does it just affect the size of the star "wobble". And would increasing or decreasing the speed of the orbit also not have an affect on orbit? Was earth travelling at the same speed around the sun before the moon or not?

YYYYYY speed !

O'k so from what i'm getting then, the orbit nor the speed of the earth traveling around the sun were affected by being hit by a mars sized planet. I would have thought just like a big marble and a little one hitting that it would have had an effect on its orbit what, 3 1/2 billion years ago.

i think a gravity system simulator
would perform the task we need..

place in stable orbit 2 objs,
than make whatever big change ..or also mid-low change... (it would lead to escape or fall in more time but yes)
u will lose the orbit..or u will have strange "non symmetric " orbit, i meen that planet will not pass every year near the same place relatively to the object in the center.

U need 2 changes to reach new stable orbit..
not just 1
this is a task evrybody can perform with any gravity simulator

my next problem is .. if u need 2 changes.. what is the second change that the planet receives after been shootes, that will lead it to a stable orbit..and now i start thinkin it is something about the autorotation that it received from the mama obj..

So are we able measure how much earths orbit was affected by the collision all those years ago?

hi grow added something to my last topic..

stable orbit means also non "shifting elliptic" orbit..
i mean that the trace of a hitted obj would appear like this 1 until the time it will escape or fall!!.. and there is no chance of self fixing !!!

[img]http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/192694/2/istockphoto_192694_ellipse.jpg

ok.. there ccould be stable "shifting " elliptic orbit but to be stable it should be placed by a magic hand.. not by a casual single crash starting by previous stable orbit..
always 2 moves needed

this is the model i was thinkin about.. a solar flare shooted with incredible self ortation.. would start walking around the central mass even if shooted straight vertical..[/img]

The idea that a planets orbit could be affected intrigued me. After watching The History Channel doco "The universe" This guy was talking about altering the path of an asteroid ever so slightly over time so that it would go around the Earth rather than smash into it. Made me think of a future where we have the ability to very gradually move/alter a planets orbit so that it sits in the habitable zone of orbit that makes life possible. I know its pretty far fetched but if we can already alter the movement (well in theory) of an asteroid, why not a planet in the distant future. Could we get to a stage where we "design" our own solar system? Yea, i'm like a little kid i guess.

im not an insider, i just know what i read surfing the internet, and spacetime engineering devices could be possible in the future or they are yet with us !! just aim your one ! 8)

Originally Posted by N+

im not an insider, i just know what i read surfing the internet, and spacetime engineering devices could be possible in the future or they are yet with us !! just aim your one ! 8)

Hahaha, yea i bought one through Demtel but like every other fad, its just gathering dust under the bed.