2
   

Radical thesis on human and solar system origins

 
 
Reply Tue 1 Oct, 2013 12:43 pm
I mentioned this one once before... I've gone over it enough by now to say that it strikes me as perfectly logical, albeit unusually strange. A sort of a blurb from the authors:

Consider the axis tilts of planets in our system. If our system had formed from a swirling disk of solar material as textbooks claim, all axial tilts should be approximately the same, that is, all near zero with all axes of the planets roughly perpendicular to the plane of orbit. The sun, Jupiter, and mercury do in fact show that. Uranus and Venus are odd cases out with their own explanations, but Neptune, Saturn, Mars, and Earth all have axis tilts of 23.4 - 27 degrees.

http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r53/icebear46/image010_zpsfde7dcc0.png

The explanation which suggests itself is as follows: Our sun, Jupiter, and Mercury, with their axes roughly perpendicular to the plane of the system, form one part of the ancient system; Uranus and Venus are odd cases with their own separate explanations; Neptune, Saturn, Mars, and Earth, with their spin axes roughly 26° to the plane of the system, comprise what once was a separate system, which must have been captured by our present sun as a group.

The normal reaction is to assume that this occurred hundreds of millions of years ago. Ancient literature says it occurred a few thousand years ago. Primitive people seeking to devise an astral religion today would end up worshiping the sun and moon, but the two chieftain gods of all antique religions were Jupiter and Saturn. Plato consistently refers to antediluvians as "Nurslings of Kronos(Saturn); the main religious festival in ancient Rome was "Saturnalia", our Sabbath is still called "Saturday". Hesiod and Ovid claim there was a golden age when Saturn/Kronos was "King of Heaven", followed by the great flood, then a brief "Silver Age" when Jupiter/Zeus was "King of Heaven", followed by the Trojan war and our present "Iron Age". In the same language, our sun is the "King of Heaven" now.

To make a long story exceedingly short, our solar system was originally in two parts: A bright part consisting of our sun, Mercury, Jupiter and its moons, and probably whatever the asteroid belt used to be; and a dark part consisting of Neptune, Saturn, Mars, and Earth. When the dark part finally flew into the Sun's orbital plane at a 26-degree angle from the South, the individual bodies peeled off and began to orbit the sun separately as they do now, but kept the ~26-d4egree angle. The How/Why of all that involves cosmic Birkeland currents and Herbig/Haro object strings.

A rocky planet (Mars, Earth) orbitting a brown dwarf star (Saturn) would do so inside the heliosphere/plasma sheath of the dark star. Life would be warm enough but the middle part of the light spectrum would be pretty much missing:

http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r53/icebear46/image015_zps7f29282e.jpg

and you'd be living in a deep purple sort of a world:

http://saturndeathcult.com/the-sturn-death-cult-part-1/a-timeless-age-in-a-purple-haze/

Creatures of such a world (dinosaurs, hominids) would have huge eyes, hence the huge dinosaur and Neanderthal eye sockets:

http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r53/icebear46/n5.gif
Image courtesy www.themandus.org

Humans with the smallest relative eye size of higher animals could not plausibly come from such an environment. For the rest of the tale including the question of an original home for modern humans within our solar system:

http://www.cosmosincollision.com

One thing I wish I knew more about, there was a big meeting/conference in Moscow earlier this year dealing with the topic of Ganymede missions as if they had some sort of a major new reason to be interested in doing something like that. Anybody knows anything about that one, let me know.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 5,383 • Replies: 9
No top replies

 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Oct, 2013 01:04 pm
@gungasnake,
Hehe . . .

Hehehe . . .

Hahahaha . . .

Ah-hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha . . .

Whew . . . you can't beat this place for free comedy . . .
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Tue 1 Oct, 2013 01:06 pm
@gungasnake,
Quote:
If our system had formed from a swirling disk of solar material as textbooks claim, all axial tilts should be approximately the same


Interesting claim now give links to peer review articles in scientific journals.

As the latest theory on the moon/earth system for example have a planet the size of Mars hitting the new earth breaking off the moon and such impacts are clearly capable of changing axis tilts after formation. So the bodies forming from the disk colliding seem to be able to cover axis tilts.

As far as capturing ex-solar planets is concern any such should have very very elliptical orbits and that is not the case for any planet other the Pluto who is no longer consider a major planet.

0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Oct, 2013 01:16 pm
@gungasnake,
Here are another theory for Uranus lying on it side back by some mathematical models that are interesting.


Quote:


http://www.technologyreview.com/view/416515/collision-free-theory-explains-why-uranus-is-lying-on-its-side/


Collision-Free Theory Explains Why Uranus Is Lying on Its Side
Astronomers have always assumed that Uranus must have been knocked onto its side by a collision. Now a new idea suggests that the planet’s remarkable tilt could have another explanation.


One of the great mysteries of our Solar System is why Uranus is tilted on its side. Surely, if the solar system formed from the same rotating cloud of dust and gas, then all the bodies within it should rotate in the same way. And yet Uranus’ axis of rotation lies at 97 degrees to the plane of the solar system.

The standard explanation is that Uranus must have been involved in some kind of interplanetary collision with and earth-sized protoplanet in the early days of the solar system. That’s a tempting idea but it has some shortcomings. For example, it doesn’t explain why the orbits of the moons of Uranus are similarly tilted, not that of its rings.

Today, Gwenael Boue and Jacques Laskar at the Observatoire de Paris in France put forward another idea. They say that Uranus may have become tilted during the period soon after formation when the planets were migrating to the orbits we see now. They point out that the presence of satellites around a planet can increase its rate of precession, if it has a high initial inclination of more than say 17 degrees. This increase can be by as much as a factor of 1000 if the mass of the moon and the radius of its orbit have certain values. For Uranus, this is for a moon of 0.01 Uranian mass and at 50 Uranian radii.

The problem, of course, is that Uranus does not have such a moon. Its most distant companion is Oberon with a mass of just 10^-5 Uranian masses and an orbit of 23 Uranian radii.

Boue and Laskar’s idea is that Uranus once had a moon of the required size and orbit, which caused the planet to tilt during the planetary migration, but that this moon was ejected during a close encounter towards the end of the migration.

To study whether this idea is feasible, they simulated the process of giant planet migration in the early solar system some 10,000 times. They then discarded all scenarios in which the planets collided or did not end up in the correct final order. They then selected only those outcomes in which Uranus had an inclination of more than 17 degrees and also rejected any simulation in which Uranus came within 50 Uranian radii of another planet, since that would be likely to eject Oberon as well as the additional hypothesised moon. That left 17 simulations.

Boue and Laskar then added the additional moon to see how it would effect the tilt of Uranus and repeated each of these 17 scenarios a further 100 times. In 37 cases, the new moon helped Uranus onto its side and then ended up being ejected after a close encounter with another gas giant.

That’s an interesting result and not just because of the tilt: some models of planet formation predict that Uranus ought to have had another moon (albeit somewhat smaller than the one Boue and Laskar introduce). Consequently, this idea has the elegant property of explaining two mysteries for the price of one, never a bad thing in science.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Oct, 2013 02:34 pm
@gungasnake,
This is all fun stuff, but there are a number of reasons why it's impossible. BillRM beat me to it on the most blatant impossibilities, so I guess I'll just read along for a while.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Oct, 2013 02:49 pm
That's the thing about Gunga Dim. If he thinks an idea is "cool," he's completely uncritical. The thing about the plants' various tilts and spins was the first thing which came to mind for me, too.

Quote:
If our system had formed from a swirling disk of solar material as textbooks claim, all axial tilts should be approximately the same, that is, all near zero with all axes of the planets roughly perpendicular to the plane of orbit.


Oh? Why would anyone assume that? The planets all have dissimilar masses, in the case of the outer planets, grossly dissimilar. Why would one assume that they would form at the same time, with the same axial alignment and the same spin? Is one to ignore the effect of comets and bolides. It's a pretty stupid assumption. The first step in critical review is the look as the premises. I don't thing Gunga Dim does that.

The part about the dim sky and the big eyes really cracks me up. There's something dim around here, but it ain't the lighting.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Oct, 2013 03:02 pm
@gungasnake,
Interesting speculation…about an issue that may never be resolved.

The initial assumption that all axial tilts should be approximately the same seems suspect (as some have already mentioned)…but leaving that aside, the reason Uranus sits the way it does may have happened in all sorts of ways…with the speculation you mentioned being one.

Sure is interesting to speculate and to consider other speculations.

Thanks for sharing this one, Gunga.
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Oct, 2013 08:07 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
…but leaving that aside, the reason Uranus sits the way it does may have happened in all sorts of ways…with the speculation you mentioned being one.


Whatever happened to Uranus is open to conjecture and problematical.

The real problem case is Venus which is basically 180 degrees upside down i.e. its rotation is retrograde. That cannot be primordial. Bob Bass once noted that the retrograde spin had to have arisen via interaction with some other body and the curious phase lock between Venus and Earth (Venus shows us the same face at inferior conjunctions) indicates that the other body was Earth.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Oct, 2013 08:54 pm
@gungasnake,
Somehow I question if earth G field in great enough to lock Venus rotation in that manner.


Quote:


http://webdesign.njit.edu/winners/2013/cat1/357/venus.html


Whereas the standard rotation for a planet about its axis is counterclockwise (as viewed from the "top" of the orbital plane), Venus' rotation is retrograde or clockwise. The reason for this is presently unknown, but there are two popular theories. The first points to the 3:2 spin-orbit resonance of Venus with the Earth. To some, this is highly suggestive that over billions of years the Earth's gravitational force has altered Venus' rotation to its present state. Some scientists, however, doubt that the Earth's gravitational force has been great enough to change Venus in such a fundamental way. Instead, they have looked to the early Solar System when the planets were being formed to provide an explanation. They theorize that Venus' original rotation was similar to that of the other planets', yet it was altered to its current orientation when a large planetesimal struck the young planet with great force, essentially knocking the planet upside down.

A second unexpected discovery regarding Venus' rotation is its speed. Taking approximately 243 Earth days to complete a single rotation, a day on Venus is longer than on any other planet. This alone is noteworthy. What is even more striking, though, is when Venus' day is compared to its year. At roughly 224 earth days, Venus' year is almost 19 earth days less than one Venusian day. Again, no other planet shares such a property. The leading theory for this phenomenon is that which is used to explain the planet's retrograde rotation.
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Oct, 2013 09:56 pm
@BillRM,
The book pretty much indicates that the ancient solar system was governed more by a Birkeland current and electromagnetic forces than by gravity.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Radical thesis on human and solar system origins
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/26/2020 at 03:03:58