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

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.

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

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.

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”

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

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

"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

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

"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