Notices
Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Alien Planet?

  1. #1 Alien Planet? 
    Forum Masters Degree SuperNatendo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nashville, TN USA
    Posts
    505
    I was wondering, since the rotation of a central body within a system causes the orbiting bodies to follow a similar plane, could this mean that the cause of Uranus being "sideways" in our solar system is that it is possibly the result of our solar system "stealing" a planet from another system? Possibly from another system from another galaxy? Do we know af any "Sideways" stars relative to the Milky Way Galaxy's plane?

    What are other explanations to the weird orientation of Uranus' axis?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Posts
    101
    maybe it's the result of crashing into something?


    .................................................. ...............
    The truth is difficult to obtain.
    They conceal it in books.
    *************************************
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Masters Degree SuperNatendo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nashville, TN USA
    Posts
    505
    Well, I'm guessing that if we are not sideways relative to the sun, and IF the sun is "straight" in relation to the galaxy, the milky way would appear to be directly above someone at the equator. I don't know whether this is the case or not...

    If our sun is sideways in relation to the galaxy, it would mean our solar system has definitely hit something at some point in time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Posts
    101
    If our sun is sideways in relation to the galaxy, it would mean our solar system has definitely hit something at some point in time
    or

    maybe its being pulled sideways by gravity outside of our solar system?
    .................................................. ...............
    The truth is difficult to obtain.
    They conceal it in books.
    *************************************
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Uranus and Venus are retro-rotation, to the sun and other planets. Venus with a 3% tilt and Uranus said to be 87% tilt, practically on its side. Both were thought to have been impacted, during formation *Inertia Impacts* which all planets probably suffered some, even by heavy objects. There is probably nothing more to it than that...

    Stars are thought to generally form in clusters. Many in our galaxy are binary (two stars in rotation around themselves) and some even three stars. Some People, feel our star formed with another and that star obits ours every 250 million years. During formation, if in close proximity, the debris from two stars (what forms planets) could have mingled.

    The gravity of Jupiter could have played a roll on Uranus, or a suspected planet between the two (disintegrated), but its not likely anything outside our system did or could have...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Masters Degree SuperNatendo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nashville, TN USA
    Posts
    505
    So these kind of collisions would also acount for why galaxies are not all on the same plane as well as stars and planets?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    I really don't like going here, but the entire 'space time fabric' indicates everything should be on the same plane, if using the flat universe scenario. Second to that theory, I seriously question the energy curving for the sake of matter gravity. This means I am questioning Einstein and not a good idea when on a public forum...

    When you consider, comets or asteroids are simply smaller planet like objects, and that all planets (objects) have different orbits and rotations there is nothing systematic other than proportionate size to a galaxy or the universe. Galaxy as viewed from earth, are in every imaginable stage of rotation (not from the stars). That is the galaxy itself could be in some stage of rotation, just as any star or planet does. If you observe a galaxy in counter clockwise rotation, remember from the other side, it would be rotating clockwise. Then there is a time element. Our solar system orbits around the MW core about every 250 million years. Our perceptions and observations are based on a few hundred years.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Masters Degree SuperNatendo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nashville, TN USA
    Posts
    505
    Just because it is a space-time fabric doesn't mean it is 2 dimensional. We know it is multidimensional.

    Just because it is portrayed that way say on a graph, one must remember that the graph is just showing you one plane for the sake of simplicity. The deduction the reader must make while using the graph is that while the graph may show a single beam of light leaving a star through the 'plane' of space, they also know that there are multiple planes of space and multiple beams of light traveling on multiple planes. If they showed every point of light traveling from the star on every plane, it would be a very unreadable and confusing graph indeed!

    By saying 'plane' in my last post I may have added to the confusion, since I know the presence of a spherical object always means there are more 'planes' instead, I should have said, "Pretty much oriented the same in relation to each other" instead of saying on the same "plane"

    I guess what I am saying is I understand why galaxies are oriented differently from each other, because the universe is expanding IN ALL DIRECTIONS, But I sometimes find it fascinating to see stars oriented differently within the same galaxy, and planets oriented differently within the same star system. Mostly because it points to a collision of bodies, be it galaxies, stars, or planets.
    "It's no wonder that truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction has to make sense." - Mark Twain
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Grand Rapids, Michigan
    Posts
    9
    I heard from somewhere that Uranus is sideways on its axis because of a huge asteriod
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,216
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperNatendo
    Well, I'm guessing that if we are not sideways relative to the sun, and IF the sun is "straight" in relation to the galaxy, the milky way would appear to be directly above someone at the equator. I don't know whether this is the case or not...

    If our sun is sideways in relation to the galaxy, it would mean our solar system has definitely hit something at some point in time.
    Here's an image showing the relationship of the Milky Way to the ecliptic (plane of the Solar system) As you can tell, they are tilted quite a bit to each other. This particular view is looking in toward the center of the galaxy. The green line is the plane of the ecliptic.



    The tilt does not mean that the Solar System was hit by anything. Unlike the Sun and planets, which formed more or less at the same time, the Solar system formed much after the galaxy had already formed. Random eddies had had time to form, which means that the collection of gases that formed the solar system wasn't necessarily rotating in the same plane as the galaxy. [/img]
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus
    Random eddies had had time to form
    I've been arguing elsewhere that our (habitable) solar system is only recently possible in the galactic context. Thanks for the ammo.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    I really don't like going here, but the entire 'space time fabric' indicates everything should be on the same plane, if using the flat universe scenario. Second to that theory, I seriously question the energy curving for the sake of matter gravity. This means I am questioning Einstein and not a good idea when on a public forum...

    When you consider, comets or asteroids are simply smaller planet like objects, and that all planets (objects) have different orbits and rotations there is nothing systematic other than proportionate size to a galaxy or the universe. Galaxy as viewed from earth, are in every imaginable stage of rotation (not from the stars). That is the galaxy itself could be in some stage of rotation, just as any star or planet does. If you observe a galaxy in counter clockwise rotation, remember from the other side, it would be rotating clockwise. Then there is a time element. Our solar system orbits around the MW core about every 250 million years. Our perceptions and observations are based on a few hundred years.
    Unless you make it an object toward probability, and simply say that they tend to be on the same plane more than to be on different planes.

    Over sufficient time, all the planets in a solar system would arrive at the same plane because gravitational forces will tend to pull them out of any other plane and insert them into the same plane together. However, "sufficient time" is quite a long time, and a lot can happen before it finishes. The effect that causes them to do this isn't the only thing in play. They can also collide with each other, fall under influence of passing comets...... etc.

    My guess is that the orbits of Venus and Uranus would eventually become like the rest of the planets, given a long enough time. But, the sun will probably burn out a good while before then.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    I have just checked the literature concerning this topic. It seems that the favourite explanation for the tilt of Uranus' axis is a collision with a very large body in the range of one earth mass. It would also explain the lack of moons around Uranus. This would have been happened already in the early phase of the solar system. Perturbations in the early solar system induced by the close encounter of a low-mass star could have lead to an increase of the generation of planetesimals. They were the bricks to form larger planets. Such an encounter could also be the cause for prograde and retrograde spins in the solar system and it might also explain the tilt of the sun of 7 deg with regard to the planetary plane.

    Just another remark: The plane of planets is not arranged by the rotation of the central body (the sun). It was already introduced during the formation of the sun during which a protoplanetary disc was formed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,216
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    I have just checked the literature concerning this topic. It seems that the favourite explanation for the tilt of Uranus' axis is a collision with a very large body in the range of one earth mass. It would also explain the lack of moons around Uranus.
    ??? Uranus has 27 known moons, the majority of which orbit in the plane of the planet's equator.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    I have just checked the literature concerning this topic. It seems that the favourite explanation for the tilt of Uranus' axis is a collision with a very large body in the range of one earth mass. It would also explain the lack of moons around Uranus.
    ??? Uranus has 27 known moons, the majority of which orbit in the plane of the planet's equator.
    The article that I found said something about a lack of moons with wide orbits. Apparently, uranus also has many irregular moons. Maybe this is what the authors meant.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster

    Just another remark: The plane of planets is not arranged by the rotation of the central body (the sun). It was already introduced during the formation of the sun during which a protoplanetary disc was formed.
    Yeah. The rotation of the central body (the sun) is the result of whatever decided the spin of the system as a whole. So, both the plane of the planets and the rotation of the central body are probably caused by the same thing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •