|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Question about Orbit of Planets
On Dec 7, 4:21 pm, "Painius" wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message... ... On Dec 7, 11:35 am, "Painius" wrote: "Jujitsu Lizard" wrote in message om... "Timberwoof" wrote in message ... The orbits of Earth and Mars are not in the same plane; that is where the "vertical" (north-south) motion comes from. Indeed, every planet has its own orbital plane; that is why the planets are not always on the ecliptic. Are the planes all close (offset by just a few degrees) or are they pretty much random for the 8 or 9 planets? Thanks. 'Lo, JL -- The reference astronomers use is called the "ecliptic". This was long ago defined as the path the Sun makes across the sky. As it turns out, this is also the plane of Earth's orbit around the Sun. All the planets pretty much orbit the Sun at or very close to the ecliptic. The worst case is planet Mercury that orbits 7 degrees off the ecliptic. You could fit all the eight major planets into a gigantic pizza box. That is how "flat" the Solar system is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecliptic . . . Most of our planets were not locally grown or otherwise created as we've been informed. Essentially, most every planet is skewed enough off-track to make a sane person wonder. Insane folks never actually wonder about anything, at least not as long as their parrot brain is in control of their faith-based killer swarm like intelligence. I totally disagree with this, Brad. Worse-case would be planet Mercury. (Can't count Pluto because its 17 degree inclination is explained by its position in the Kuiper *BELT*.) Mercury's 7-degree offset from the ecliptic represents a 7/360 x 100 = less than a 2% deviation from the ecliptic. Add to this the very low eccentricities, and the only really weird thing is how far off from the Sun's equatorial plane the planets are. There is a table at the link i gave above showing the inclinations to the Sun's equator. It's as if a very large something collided with the Sun early on, enough to throw its equator about 7 degrees off the ecliptic! Or maybe it was some weird kind of gyro effect? Anyway, all our planets have been here in this Solar system from the beginnings of the system, Brad, BET on it! Carl Sagan thoroughly *trounced* the "Venusian Intrusion" theory. And there's a whole lot of evidence that all the planets, to include planet Selene, were here right from the onset. Continuing to believe in such faith-based balderdash is truly madness! btw, of everything here, where is as is, is devoutly faith-based/ creation madness. I guess we know which side of the bipolar faith- based fence you're on. ~ BG |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Question about Orbit of Planets
In article
, BradGuth wrote: ? faith-based ? (you've got to be kidding, though obviously you're not) Since there still are no simulators capable of taking apart or assembling a proper solar system with any reasonable degree of replication that'll match up with any other independent simulation effort, I'll stick with my deductively open-source kind of interpretation. Deductive, eh? Based on what evidence? By what flow of logic? With what elementary math to back it up? No evidence, no logic, no mathematical model whatsoever. It's all faith-based wishful thinking. Venus is simply less old than Earth, You've provided no evidence whatsoever to back up this claim. and it seems to have lost its moon (possibly Mercury or Selene) in the process. You have provided no evidence to support that it ever had a moon, that it left Venus orbit, that it entered either solar or earth orbit. Mars (along with its nifty looking wood plank and square hatch to its underground) ROFL. seems somewhat older than Earth, On what evidence? and also having lost or damaged its primary moon On what evidence? along with having lost its magnetosphere and much of its atmosphere shortly thereafter. That at least has real evidence, but from a source you distrust because it usually contradicts the rest of your subjective flights of fancy. -- Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot com http://www.timberwoof.com Most of the universe is extremely hostile to life as we know it. It seems obvious that it was all designed by some creature that hates life... And here you are, trying to attract its attention. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Question about Orbit of Planets
On Dec 7, 7:56 pm, Timberwoof
wrote: In article , BradGuth wrote: ? faith-based ? (you've got to be kidding, though obviously you're not) Since there still are no simulators capable of taking apart or assembling a proper solar system with any reasonable degree of replication that'll match up with any other independent simulation effort, I'll stick with my deductively open-source kind of interpretation. Deductive, eh? Based on what evidence? By what flow of logic? With what elementary math to back it up? No evidence, no logic, no mathematical model whatsoever. It's all faith-based wishful thinking. You're brand new here? Excluding other simulations isn't playing fair, now is it. Venus is simply less old than Earth, You've provided no evidence whatsoever to back up this claim. Venus is losing 20.5 w/m2 Earth is 98.5% fluid, Venus is at least 99% if not 99.5% fluid, and the fluid nature of Venus is without the 2e20 N/sec benefit of having a big old moon. Are you going to suggest that Venus is thorium heated? Would you like to count active volcanic and geothermal vents? and it seems to have lost its moon (possibly Mercury or Selene) in the process. You have provided no evidence to support that it ever had a moon, that it left Venus orbit, that it entered either solar or earth orbit. Unlike yourself, I'm not all knowing. However, when I eventually know everything, at least I'll share. Mars (along with its nifty looking wood plank and square hatch to its underground) ROFL. Are you blind, or just dumbfounded? seems somewhat older than Earth, On what evidence? It's relatively inert, biologically dead and rather cold, damn near to its core. and also having lost or damaged its primary moon On what evidence? No primary moon. That kind of terrain needs a moon. Earth w/o moon would likely have become 95+% water and ice covered. along with having lost its magnetosphere and much of its atmosphere shortly thereafter. That at least has real evidence, but from a source you distrust because it usually contradicts the rest of your subjective flights of fancy. Even Hitler wasn't all bad, nor always wrong. Lots of other analogies if you'd like to go on and on. -- Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot comhttp://www.timberwoof.com Most of the universe is extremely hostile to life as we know it. It seems obvious that it was all designed by some creature that hates life... And here you are, trying to attract its attention. The God or ET wizards in charge of Earth had a seriously weird if not sick sense of humor. ~ BG |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Question about Orbit of Planets
In article
, BradGuth wrote: On Dec 7, 7:56 pm, Timberwoof wrote: In article , BradGuth wrote: ? faith-based ? (you've got to be kidding, though obviously you're not) Since there still are no simulators capable of taking apart or assembling a proper solar system with any reasonable degree of replication that'll match up with any other independent simulation effort, I'll stick with my deductively open-source kind of interpretation. Deductive, eh? Based on what evidence? By what flow of logic? With what elementary math to back it up? No evidence, no logic, no mathematical model whatsoever. It's all faith-based wishful thinking. You're brand new here? Excluding other simulations isn't playing fair, now is it. Simulations are not evidence for what happened; they can only show what's plausible. Venus is simply less old than Earth, You've provided no evidence whatsoever to back up this claim. Venus is losing 20.5 w/m2 Earth is 98.5% fluid, Venus is at least 99% if not 99.5% fluid, and the fluid nature of Venus is without the 2e20 N/sec benefit of having a big old moon. What definition of fluid are you using? Are you going to suggest that Venus is thorium heated? Why should I do that? Would you like to count active volcanic and geothermal vents? This has what, exactly, to do with the age of Venus? and it seems to have lost its moon (possibly Mercury or Selene) in the process. You have provided no evidence to support that it ever had a moon, that it left Venus orbit, that it entered either solar or earth orbit. Unlike yourself, I'm not all knowing. However, when I eventually know everything, at least I'll share. So how do you know Venus lost its moon? Mars (along with its nifty looking wood plank and square hatch to its underground) ROFL. Are you blind, or just dumbfounded? No, I'm laughing at you. You're willing to believe any old balderdash claim made about NASA photos. seems somewhat older than Earth, On what evidence? It's relatively inert, biologically dead and rather cold, damn near to its core. It's also smaller, which means more surface area compared to its volume than Earth, and thus loses heat at a greater rate than Earth. You've proven nothing. and also having lost or damaged its primary moon On what evidence? No primary moon. That kind of terrain needs a moon. It does? How do you know this? Earth w/o moon would likely have become 95+% water and ice covered. It would? How do you know this? along with having lost its magnetosphere and much of its atmosphere shortly thereafter. That at least has real evidence, but from a source you distrust because it usually contradicts the rest of your subjective flights of fancy. Even Hitler wasn't all bad, nor always wrong. Lots of other analogies if you'd like to go on and on. Godwin already? FAIL. -- Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot com http://www.timberwoof.com People who can't spell get kicked out of Hogwarts. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Question about Orbit of Planets
When your brain can beat even one astronomer, BradBoi, please let us
know as that would be a MIRACLE! lmfjao! WACKO NUTJOB that you are! You're INSANE! You're the VILLAGE IDIOT! Saul Levy On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 12:12:56 -0800 (PST), BradGuth wrote: Most of our planets were not locally grown or otherwise created as we've been informed. Essentially, most every planet is skewed enough off-track to make a sane person wonder. Insane folks never actually wonder about anything, at least not as long as their parrot brain is in control of their faith-based killer swarm like intelligence. ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet” |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Question about Orbit of Planets
BULL**** FROM BRADBOI! lmfjao!
I'm not surprised. Saul Levy On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 17:08:49 -0800 (PST), BradGuth wrote: Since there still are no simulators capable of taking apart or assembling a proper solar system with any reasonable degree of replication that'll match up with any other independent simulation effort, I'll stick with my deductively open-source kind of interpretation. Venus is simply less old than Earth, and it seems to have lost its moon (possibly Mercury or Selene) in the process. Mars (along with its nifty looking wood plank and square hatch to its underground) seems somewhat older than Earth, and also having lost or damaged its primary moon along with having lost its magnetosphere and much of its atmosphere shortly thereafter. ~ BG |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Question about Orbit of Planets
Yes, Hitler was WRONG. ALWAYS! Every decision he ever made was
WRONG! No doubt about it except in INSANE BRAINS like yours, BradBoi! lmfjao! You do realize that Hitler would have had YOU KILLED for BEING INSANE, don't you? Or performed DISGUSTING EXPERIMENTS on you. And you would have deserved it too! Saul Levy On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 21:46:03 -0800 (PST), BradGuth wrote: Even Hitler wasn't all bad, nor always wrong. Lots of other analogies if you'd like to go on and on. ~ BG |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Question about Orbit of Planets
"Timberwoof" wrote...
in message ... Look for Jack Horkheimer's weekly astronomy program on PBS. It's about five minutes long. He tells you about some interesting event and where to look for it in the sky. Actually going out and looking at the stars is really the best way to get involved in astronomy. No telescope is needed. :-) Jack's place... http://www.jackstargazer.com/ happy holidays and... starry starry nights! -- Indelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: "In time we hate that which we often fear." Will Shakespeare P.P.S.: http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com http://garden-of-ebooks.blogspot.com http://painellsworth.net |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Astronomy Putzels 101.14 (was - Question about Orbit of Planets)
Putzels
101.14 The Mysterious Motion of Mars "Timberwoof" wrote... in message ... In article , BradGuth wrote: On Dec 7, 7:56 pm, Timberwoof wrote: In article , BradGuth wrote: Mars (along with its nifty looking wood plank and square hatch to its underground) ROFL. Are you blind, or just dumbfounded? No, I'm laughing at you. You're willing to believe any old balderdash claim made about NASA photos. seems somewhat older than Earth, On what evidence? It's relatively inert, biologically dead and rather cold, damn near to its core. It's also smaller, which means more surface area compared to its volume than Earth, and thus loses heat at a greater rate than Earth. You've proven nothing. and also having lost or damaged its primary moon On what evidence? No primary moon. That kind of terrain needs a moon. It does? How do you know this? -- Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot com http://www.timberwoof.com People who can't spell get kicked out of Hogwarts. In all fairness, i am rather mystified by one aspect of planet Mars... it's rotation rate. Planets Mercury and Venus are much closer to the Sun, so their slow rotation rates can be explained by the tidal-locking effect of our great star. That may also apply a little to the Earth, but by far the greater tidal effect upon the Earth has been made by planet Selene, the Moon. Then there's planet Mars. Mars' rotation rate is just about the same as Earth's rotation rate. How is this possible? Mars is too far from the Sun to be slowed down much by any tidal force from the Sun's gravitational field. And Mars has no huge sister planet like the Earth and Moon. So how can one account for the slowing of the rotation rate of Mars over the eons? Some say it was caused by planet Jupiter, but this seems unlikely judging by the isochronous rates of spin of the asteroids in the belt. Their spins are very fast and very similar to Jupiter's 8-hour/day rotation rate. So how exactly did Mars slow down so much? A large partner object such as our Moon revolving around a common barycenter with Mars would definitely explain Mars' slow spin rate. And as yet, i haven't been able to figure out what else could. Mars has slowed its spin rate about the same amount as Earth has, and there's no evident way to explain it. happy holidays and... starry starry nights! -- Indelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: "In time we hate that which we often fear." Will Shakespeare P.P.S.: http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com http://garden-of-ebooks.blogspot.com http://painellsworth.net |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Astronomy Putzels 101.14 (was - Question about Orbit of Planets)
"Painius" wrote in message...
... Putzels 101.14 The Mysterious Motion of Mars In all fairness, i am rather mystified by one aspect of planet Mars... it's rotation rate. Planets Mercury and Venus are much closer to the Sun, so their slow rotation rates can be explained by the tidal-locking effect of our great star. That may also apply a little to the Earth, but by far the greater tidal effect upon the Earth has been made by planet Selene, the Moon. Then there's planet Mars. Mars' rotation rate is just about the same as Earth's rotation rate. How is this possible? Mars is too far from the Sun to be slowed down much by any tidal force from the Sun's gravitational field. And Mars has no huge sister planet like the Earth and Moon. So how can one account for the slowing of the rotation rate of Mars over the eons? Some say it was caused by planet Jupiter, but this seems unlikely judging by the isochronous rates of spin of the asteroids in the belt. Their spins are very fast and very similar to Jupiter's 8-hour/day rotation rate. So how exactly did Mars slow down so much? A large partner object such as our Moon revolving around a common barycenter with Mars would definitely explain Mars' slow spin rate. And as yet, i haven't been able to figure out what else could. Mars has slowed its spin rate about the same amount as Earth has, and there's no evident way to explain it. Some might argue that planets Earth and Mars were slowed by about the same amount by the Sun, thusly proving that Selene, the Moon, is a relative newcomer to the Earth's vicinity, and therefore has had little influence on Earth compared with the Sun's influence. I would have to take exception to this. If Earth and Mars were only and solely influenced by the Sun's tidal effect, then Earth would rotate somewhat *slower* than Mars even without the Moon's influence. And yet Earth actually spins just a little *faster* than Mars. And of course there is other compelling evidence that the Moon has been Earth's partner since the onset. So we come back to Mars with still no explanation as to how the fifth planet from the Sun (Merc., Ven., Earth, Selene, and Mars) managed to slow its rotation speed to a rate that's a little *slower* than Earth's rotation speed. ( ??? ) happy holidays and... starry starry nights! -- Indelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: "In time we hate that which we often fear." Will Shakespeare P.P.S.: http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com http://garden-of-ebooks.blogspot.com http://painellsworth.net |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
silly question concerning the orbit of the planets. | [email protected] | Amateur Astronomy | 21 | March 20th 06 05:52 AM |
PLANETS ORBIT THE SUN TO CONSERVE TOTA; ENERGY | GRAVITYMECHANIC2 | Astronomy Misc | 0 | January 28th 05 08:21 PM |
How come planets are still in orbit? | AngleWyrm | Misc | 12 | December 18th 04 10:29 PM |
how come planets are still in orbit? | AngleWyrm | Misc | 0 | December 17th 04 10:23 AM |
PLANETS ORBIT THE SUN TO CONSERVE ENERGY | GRAVITYMECHANIC2 | Astronomy Misc | 0 | July 11th 03 01:49 PM |