Did a Lost Star Torque Earth's Orbit?

Did a Lost Star Torque Earth's Orbit?
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceno...or.html?ref=hp


One young star may yank another's developing solar system, a new theory suggests, accounting for planets that circle their stars on tilted paths. This idea may also explain a long-standing puzzle close to home: why Earth's orbit is tipped 7° relative to the sun's equator.

On Nov 15, 2:32*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
Did a Lost Star Torque Earth's Orbit?







http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceno...t-star-torque-...
One young star may yank another's developing solar system, a new theory suggests, accounting for planets that circle their stars on tilted paths. This idea may also explain a long-standing puzzle close to home: why Earth's orbit is tipped 7° relative to the sun's equator.


At least they show signs of getting away from 'warped space',gravity
wells and unproductive things like that.

One of you better postings on these matters over the last few years
was certainly the HFA of Venus resulting from CME's -

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/su...xplosions.html

Using planetary comparisons and especially as Venus and Earth are
roughly the same size,it seems easier to link the planet's lack of
spherical deviation,lack of plate tectonics and lack of a decent
magnetic field with the absence of rotation,at least in comparison to
the Earth's fairly rapid rotation.The reaction in the moderated forum
where a lot of jargon spouting academics travel in these circles is
the usual silence that comes from listening to the cogs turning in
their brain,they probably catch tiny glimpses of the possibilities but
can't live without the reference building format which is part and
parcel of empiricism.

The possibilities of using the uneven rotational gradient of the fluid
interior for the Earth's magnetic field should not suffer the same
fate as the development of arguments which link planetary spherical
deviation and plate tectonics under the same mechanism.When the wider
community got wind of rotation in this format,they threw every
assertion and reference they could find without actually taking the
time to look at the rough draft which uses already known observations
of celestial objects with exposed rotating fluid compositions and an
adjustment of viscosity away from the high viscosity fluid used to
conjecture 'convection cells'.

The use of an ecliptic axis orthogonal to the orbital plane and around
which the polar coordinates are carried does raise certain
possibilities as the ecliptic axis looks fairly close to where the the
Earth's magnetic North exists -

http://www.nappf.com/IsogenicLines.gif

The deviation in magnetic North may be an orbital trait for these
reasons but with a community insistent on running everything off a
rotating celestial sphere generated by daily rotation,this avenue will
also remain dormant and not discussed at all.

I like the unmoderated forums Sam as opposed to the sterile atmosphere
of the moderated forums,this place has probably more in common with
the coffee house atmosphere of earlier Royal Society empiricism where
a lot of things were discussed informally before being given a formal
treatment but unfortunately that doesn't happen any more.

Saw the article elsewhere. Given that the orbits of the planets are
all in the same plane and nearly circular, while a lost star gently
nudging Jupiter, with billions of years of gravity taking care of the
rest is, I suppose, still possible, my first thought would be that a
lost star, slipping in neatly well inside the orbit of Mercury (!),
*tilted the Sun*.

John Savard