E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
SwRI
An artist's conception shows a giant planet ejected from the early solar system.
Computer simulations suggest that a giant planet was kicked out of our solar system billions of years ago, saving Earth in the process. But how solid are those simulations?
The concept appears in a paper written by David Nesvorny, a researcher at the Southwest Research Institute, and published in The Astrophysical Journal Letters. His findings aren't based on the discovery of an actual Planet X, but instead are the result of thousands of simulations re-enacting the dynamical development of our planetary system.
Past simulations have shown that the solar system's current configuration is the result of a complex dance of the planets: About 600 million years into the solar system's existence, gravitational interactions caused a series of orbital shifts and scatterings. Astronomers believe that Jupiter moved inward and scattered many of the solar system's smaller bodies outward. Meanwhile, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune moved outward. Some models even suggest Uranus and Neptune switched places as they moved out.
This scenario explains phenomena ranging from the distribution of small bodies on the solar system's edge to the cratering rate on the moon. However, Jupiter's behavior in the model had to be tweaked: If Jupiter's orbit moved inward gradually, the giant planet would have stirred up the inner solar system too much. Earth's orbit could have been disrupted so much that it would have crashed into Mars or Venus.
"Colleagues suggested a clever way around this problem," Nesvorny said in a news release issued this week by the Southwest Research Institute. "They proposed that Jupiter's orbit quickly changed when Jupiter scattered off of Uranus or Neptune during the dynamical instability in the outer solar system."
This maneuver, known as the jumping-Jupiter hypothesis, would be less disruptive for the inner solar system. Nesvorny decided to test the idea by running billions of years' worth of simulations. He found that Jupiter did indeed do a quick orbital change as the result of gravitational encounters with Uranus or Neptune. But the encounters also scattered Uranus or Neptune all the way out of the solar system. "Something was clearly wrong," Nesvorny said.
Nesvorny ran the simulations again, this time with an additional giant planet that had a mass similar to that of Uranus and Neptune. Sure enough, Jupiter scattered the extra planet out of the solar system, and then quickly settled into an orbit that left the inner planets undisturbed. Nesvorny wrote that "it is roughly 10 times more likely to obtain a good solar system analog" if the extra planet is included.
How likely is it that a giant planet could be tossed out of the solar system? "This possibility appears to be conceivable in view of the recent discovery of a large number of free-floating planets in interstellar space, which indicates that planet ejection should be common," Nesvorny wrote.
No Planet X in sight
It's intriguing to imagine that there's a Planet X out there, cruising dejectedly through the interstellar wilderness. But so far, there's no empirical evidence to back up the theoretical claim.
"This paper is an example of what theorists do best: theorize," Alan Boss, a planetary scientist at the Carnegie Institution for Science, told me in an email. "The results are conceivable, but it is hard to imagine that they will be conclusive. There is a huge volume of possible initial conditions space for theorists to explore, and this is one particular example of an interesting possible path leading to a system similar to our own."
Boss said he was most concerned about the reference to the free-floating planets. He pointed out that the planets reported in the earlier research were around the mass of Jupiter, not Uranus or Neptune.
"That is not the situation being investigated [in Nesvorny's paper]. That is not to say that the scenario could not occur, but only that they cannot use the free-floating Jupiter-mass objects to support their scenario," he said. "If astronomers find lots of free-floating Neptune-mass objects, that would be another story."
More strange planetary tales:
- Three weird planets found around sunlike star
- Why odd alien planets travel in backward orbits
- Nearby stars could pose threat to solar system
- Don't fret over Planet X
Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page, following @b0yle on Twitter or following the Cosmic Log Google+ page. You can also check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for new worlds.
Leave a Comment:
Although often ridiculed, Zacharia Sitchin, postulated a wild theory of ancient astronauts and planetary movement, based on interpretive readings of ancient texts, including the Old Testament, the epic of Gilgamesh, and Vedic writings, among others.
Computer simulations of modern day astronomers are based on so many wild assumptions about events and planetary positions billions of years ago, that it should not be given any more credence that supposed historical texts of ancient mankind.
As a computer programmer, I can create a computer simulation that behaves anyway that I want it to behave. Being part of a computer simulation, it in no way makes a hypothesis more scientific, accurate, predictive, or correct than an educated guess.
While I don't claim that Sitchin is correct, I have doubts about any hypothesis based on computer simulations. These doubts span all the way from computer simulations about global climate change and an anticipated rise in ocean levels as a result of melting polar caps and glaciers to nuclear winter to the hypothesis of the researchers highlighted in this article.
Unlike a creationist who discounts evolution based on ancient texts, I accept evolution because molecular biology can develop empirical tests that prove the theory of evolution. In fact, germ warfare development is based on evolution in order to develop more potent, deadly hazards and antidotes. Hypothesis should be testable in the real world, in order to be considered science. If the hypothesis that a Jupiter sized planet was ejected from the solar system, there should be at least one example that has been discovered of medium-to-large size planet outside of a solar system.
Climate change is iffy. We know that certain areas of the Earth's land mass have risen in average temperature over the past 50 years, which is an infinitesimally small period when compared to geological time, the history of mankind, or even the Industrial Revolution. Large swaths of the ocean surface have not been measured for temperature, so what we have is an incomplete measuring stick. Even today, predicting the weather, based on Doppler radar and satellite imagery is spotty even in a five day forecast. A 100 year forecast of specific changes to the climate is, again, a guess. We know things are going to change, the science is determining exactly how its going to change.
Finally, planetary astronomers making hypothesis about events which occurred hundreds of millions of years ago is akin to theoretical physicists and mathematicians making "educated guesses" about a multi-verse reality, and trying to describe the other universes that exist beyond our own. While the math supports the hypothesis of a multi-verse reality, there is no way to test the hypothesis, thus it is not science because it can't be tested through real world observation, and neither is the science in this article.
Any attempted prediction of stochastic behavior of a system such as the solar system is a losing proposition.
Haven't these astronomers ever heard of Laplace's three body problem which because of the nonlinearities involved makes the orbits of three or more planets impossible to predict beyond a few orbits. It is like Lorenz Chaos theory and weather models...and why we cannot predict weather beyond a few days.
To me, this article is junk science. A computer simulation is just that. They should report this as the results of their limited model of the computer simulation, not try to infer that because they programmed in x number of parameters in a mathematical orbital model of the solar system that somehow a giant planet is responsible. What they are looking at is the output of the computer program...did this program take into account the nature of nonlinearities?
Lastly, they should look to the literature on chaos theory. I will offer a quote..."Laskar's work showed that the Earth's orbit (as well as the orbits of all the inner planets) is chaotic and that an error as small as 15 metres in measuring the position of the Earth today would make it impossible to predict where the Earth would be in its orbit in just over 100 million years' time."
Lasker's paper:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19930009775_1993009775.pdf
I wonder how their simulation accounted for chaotic motion over billions of years?
GIGO is valid. Not all software is created equal.
Agree, this is another half-assed pseudo scientific study. If these people understood physics or astornomy they'd realize that our whole solar system cannot have an ecliptic plane without an outside force such as another star(s) acting on it. Therefore our solar system is actually a part of a binary star system on a highly eccentric orbit experiencing periodic randevouz moments with catastrophic events occuring at those times. Thats what sumerians wrote about actually. And the time frame is roughly a 24000 years cycle.
As for me, I can read some of these somewhat good theories, and understand how scientist have come up with them, but in all good faith, without a good and clear observation, then in my mind it will continue to be just a theory. I say keep working on it, and the math, in time with hard work, it may provide a way to present itself with the proof of good and clear observation.
Have a good day Tom And Lyn
I don't see where they are saying anything about having proof, in fact they say they don't even have any empirical evidence for this theory. This simulation is to test their ideas, you can never prove anything with a computer simulation. Coincidentally, I watched a show on the Science channel I believe last weekend that talked about Planet X or possibly and orbiting brown drawf that could be causing orbital disturbances in Oort cloud to cause the periodic bombardment of comets and asteroids. I see this as a further discussion of that phenomena.
JRS,
Spot on, the matrix is just too large. There are just too many interacting parameters, the degrees of freedom are so many that the eigenvalues must be practically infinite.
They must have done a lot of selective tweaking.
Bad science.
This is one theory involving planetary physics & solar system genesis which you'd do well to pay attention to. I met & discussed events with him several times at the USP-Brazil while he was working on his Doctorate, myself on my Masters. Although it's pretty much impossible to truly rank modern scientists .... best in the world, second best, etc. .... it can easily & truthfully be said that Dr. Nesvorny is ONE of the most experienced people in the world in this specific field.
His mentioned theory is FAR from a guess, not even an educated guess. His theory IS based upon the most accurate, most recent, most complex, most accepted ideas within ALL of academia & science, concerning this specific field.
While there's no need to just blindly take someone's word about something, if you want to try to poke holes in ANY material released by Dr. Nesvorny .... you better da#n well be one of the OTHER people in that "most experienced" group. If not, then you are YEARS behind him in current knowledge of this specific science ....... I promise you that.
I find it amusing that all of these people love to sit up and criticize and make fun of other people's ideas, as if their own ideas were valid. I seriously doubt that any of you have actually read, much less published a truly scientific paper on this subject. In fact, I would be willing to bet that all of you nay-sayers have never even finished college. It just goes to show that those who can do, and those who can't sit up and criticize and gripe about those who can.
As someone who studied astrophysics as an undergrad, I find it kind of silly that those who might have read a few popular books on astronomy or mathmatics feel competent to judge the veracity of this study. Astrophysics is far more difficult than many of you comprehend. There was a time when the layman was humble and truly marveled at what science and scientists accomplished. Now it seems anyone who has read a couple books and has access to the interwebs is an expert.
What are the chances that, instead of ejecting a planet, two smaller gas planets merged to become the massive Jupiter? Have they run any simulations on that? Just a thought (and not backed up by anymore astronomy know-how than an A+ in Astro 101 as a college frosh).
Planet X got destroyed already, its part of the asteroid belt, Mars retrograde motions caused it to stress out with Jupiter pulling it from one side and Mars stretching it out the other way....The planet got destroyed being pulled apart by gravity and may have been an unstable planet to begin with. Chunks of the planet destroyed life on Mars...put Venus into a perpetual state of Greenhouse gases, and wiped out the dinosuars on earth.
Interesting scenario, and just as plausible as theirs I'd guess.
Many people think that if a computer simulation came up with this theory, then it must be true because it was a computer. But computers are nothing more than dumb boxes that take their cues from man. If man tells it wrong, it'll be wrong.
Except for the fact that as stated in the title of the article Planet X was a giant and therefore made of gas. Gas giants wouldn't produce the asteroid belt; a smaller rocky planet such as the Earth, Mars, Venus, or Mercury would have been necessary to produce asteroids and thus the asteroid belt.
Vince! Ssshhhh! The Anunaki are listening...
I wondered the same about the asteroids. Could a large gas giant have a rocky core, which if struck hard enough by a large enough body would break up into the chunks we see remaining today? Would the gases disapate (sp?), perhaps adding to the mass of Jupiter, or would they re-accrete in the same orbital path, reforming the original gas planet?
Um... I'm not sure where Eric got that information from, but Mars does NOT have a retrogade orbit. No planet in our solar system does.
Maybe he heard about retrograde motion from earth centric models of the solar system and missed that it got ruled out a couple of centuries ago...
Seems that a third large planet could affect a retrogade planet doubly so. Over time the two or three orbiting normal planets would slow the orbit of the target retro planet over billions of years until the planet actually stopped orbiting. There would be an interesting sort of gravitational mechanics in the curvature of space, the retro planet would start gaining momentum in its retro orbit by falling backwards into the gravitational wells or sinkholes of the other planets and therfore would fall backwards into those gravity wells being propelled as such....and the conditions would have to have been near perfect timing for millions of years for that gravity well pattern to develop, for the planet to orbit opposite its star's orbit and opposite of its siblings orbits. It makes for one helluva juggling act. There would be two separate orbital dynamics...one that stopped the stars orbit...and the new dynamics that reverses its orbit.
I must have missed this article about these gas giants.
oops..."stopped the planets orbit" not the stars orbit.
In the beginning darkness was upon the face of the earth.
he said. "If astronomers find lots of free-floating Neptune-mass objects, that would be another story."
I guess that would be another story "Astronomers find legions of worlds roaming open space".
"If astronomers find"
So why haven't any been categorized or reported?
The point of Alan Boss' comment was that the free-floating planetary-scale objects were the size of Jupiter, not Uranus or Neptune. Boss was saying that if there were observations of those significantly smaller objects as free-floaters, that would be more of a boost for Nesvorny's case. Boss provided some further technical details in his email, which I didn't include in the item. But since the question has come up, here are the additional comments (Boss refers to the press release because I sent him a copy of the release as well as the ArXiv paper):
"My main concern is the claim in the press release that this idea is supported by recent observations of free-floating planets that might have been ejected by this same process. This is a false claim.
"The free-floating objects recently claimed to be in the galaxy are all of Jupiter-mass (found by microlensing). The press release talks about ejecting a Neptune-mass ice giant, not a Jupiter-mass gas giant.
"The mass ratio between the two is about 318:15 = 20:1 or so. That means that the third body needed to eject a Jupiter-mass object is at least 20 times larger than Jupiter, and so most likely a brown dwarf or binary star companion to the planetary system's host star.
"That is not the situation being investigated by the press release work. That is not to say that the press release scenario could not occur, but only that they cannot use the free-floating Jupiter-mass objects to support their scenario. If astronomers find lots of free-floating Neptune-mass objects, that would be another story."
That's illuminating Alan; thanks!
Thank you Alan, The clarification is/was appreciated!!
Yes, my reading was that it was a matter of scale, not a whole different scenario. Thank you.
What Rush above is referring to:
Because our Earth has a wobble to it with a 26,000 year cycle, wouldn't the Brown Dwarf (Binary System) being proposed be close enough that our space telescopes could find it? There should be enough heat from it to show up on the new Infrared telescopes. I can't believe it would be that far away to be 'hidden" from our view and still have an affect on our planet. Also it should create a wobble on most of the other planets as well. Does Mercury, Venus and Mars have a wobble similar to ours? If not, then we most likely don't have a binary system. Ain't so?
Del - you are correct on every point. (As usual)
Wouldn't it be interesting if this object was still in a very distant orbit out there...
DelFairchil. Earth has no wobble its just another BS hypothesis based on geological data. The problem here is while this data confirms that polar shift did occur it doesn't provide any information on the time frame. In other words did the shift occur as one major event or is it a slow cycling progressive 'wobble' shift. There is ample evidence of a catastrophic event shift found from freshly frozen tropical fossils in the polar region. And in contrast there is alot of damaging evidence against the 'wobble' shift. If there was a wobble then the planets within our solar system would change positions from earths perspective, this doesn't happen. Also there would be a reversal of seasons every halfcycle and that is not observed either. So there you go.
And with regard to a binary star hypothesis it is extremely likely that we are in a binary star system because various features of our solar system indicate that there is a heavy outside influence. But there is no need to look for an invisible 'dwarf' star. The star we are bound to is clearly visible and is known. What people need to consider is the following. If you apply Keplers Law of Planetary Motion to a 24K year cycle with orbital eccentricity of around .9 then you will get distances measured in light years, as furthest points of interaction.
Which means that if we are in the middle of the cycle any number of visible stars could be our companion. The best candidate is Sirius based on its historical prominance and various myths. In this scenario you have Sirius randevouz with our Sun at extremely high speeds and rearranging our solar system in the process and then depart and become a nonfactor for the next 24,000 years. This also correlates with our archeological findings of a catastrophic event of roughly 12000 years ago placing us squarely in the middle of the cycle at this time.
Earth's "wobble" (it's precession) is a gradual process which is observed directly today. Star charts are updated regularly to account for it. It's a process which has been tracked continuously for 400 years (since the invention of the telescope); when that data is projected back in time it matches EXACTLY with the observations of Egyptian, Greek, and Babylonian astronomers.
Actually the fact that the planets' orbits are very nearly perfectly circular is a damning bit of evidence that there we are NOT in a binary system.
And so on for the rest of the posts....
Planets not stars Michael. Thats the whole point. There is gradual precession with regard to the stars but there is no comparable change in planets positions. And the seasons don't shift either as they should under this theory. But thats exactly what should happen in a binary star system scenario.
I'm sure a computer simulation could test that theory of why some planets orbit their star in the opposite direction of other planets as we can mathamatically infer their gravitational influence according to their mass in the space they occupy. Wether a computer simulation as such can represent empirical evidence does it not reason to say that since we cannot directly see a planets gravitational influence on other planets through direct visual observation of ether-gravity itself, then it must be satifactorily empirical that mathamatics is the tool for directly observing the gravitational effects and influences on the planets within our own solar system. And since that math works for our own solar system it is fairly empirical that the math would demonstrate the viability of computer simulations in producing empirical tests of directly observable phenomena in other solar systems.
One could imagine the complexity of orbital mechanics as yet unseen in binary systems where planets could make a half orbit around one star, say clockwise, then is grabbed by the second star, its orbit stops completely, then changing its orbit to counterclockwise around the second star, and switching orbits repeatedly while the binary stars are dancing in their own orbit.
But we haven't as yet observed such a scenario.
Interesting but what about the sun? they talk about 600 million years ago, I thought the sun was about 500 million years old with about another 500 million years to go before it goes black!How did the sun get so perfectly placed to supply Earth with the light needed?
Could the sun be responsible for placing the planets in order as we know it, or how did it get into the center of things?
600 million years as stated seems before the sun arrived is this right or could his timing be out a million years?
Just a thought.
Nick...may I recommend that you pick up a science book and do a bit of reading. The article was talking about things that happened 600 million years after the formation of the solar system billions of years ago.
And the sun in no way is 500 million years old. The Earth itself is 4.5 Billion years old. The sun is a bit older around 4.6 billion years...the solar system having formed around the same time.
So, they are actually talking 4 billion years ago (4.6 billion minus 600 million).
Just google it and you can find some answers or go to the library and pick up a book on astronomy or watch the Universe series on Netflix or something. I encourage you to keep on asking questions and reading these articles.
Here's a link to get you started...it talks about the formation of the solar system as well.
http://www.universetoday.com/18237/how-old-is-the-sun/
It's amazing how ignorant people can still be in the information age. I blame Religion, the Destroyer of Knowledge and Truth.
Who in the hell asked you atheist?
Not quite. Our sun is closer to 5 billion years old, with about another 5 billion years left.
As for placement, the sun is the result of the collapse of an interstellar cloud, the remnants of a previous star. As the cloud collapsed inward it started spinning, forming a disk. The vast majority of the material, close to 99.9%, coalesced in the center under gravity until the pressure made it hot enough for fusion reactions to start. Those fusion reactions, over time, cleared much of the remaining material out into space forming a bubble, leaving clumps behind that were already orbiting erratically. Those lumps then bombarded into each other over time to form the planets. That is solar system formation in a nutshell, and it is something that we've been able to observe in different stages with stars in our neighborhood.
The sun is the reason the planets orbit at all. Two bodies orbit each other based on their ratio of mass. The sun does lend a lot of stability. However, our solar system is loaded with the remnants of violence. The asteroid belt used to be a planet, a fifth rocky world. Our moon was very likely created when another rocky planet smashed into the Earth a very long time ago, destroying that planet and melting the entire surface of our world. As for perfection in placement, a lot of that is a matter of chance and timing. Given how common planets seem to be it is just a matter of time and we're, mathematically, likely not the only beings peering up and wondering what makes us so special.
May I ask for a reference to your claim that the Sun is 5 billion years old?
I just did a search and I keep on coming up with the same number. The sun is (4.57 ± 0.11) Gyr (where Gyr is a billion years). If you would like a peer-reviewed published scientific article, here you go. From Astronomy and Astrophysics...
http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/pdf/2002/30/aa2598.pdf
You're right JRS, however, he says "closer to 5 billion years old," in reference, I believe, to the comment above stating that the Sun is 500 million years old. In that context, he's actually quite accurate.
@ presence...
Ok...I see what you are saying. My point was that since Halo... did not use the "@..." to refer to Nick and not my post after Nick's, I thought he was correcting my previous post that rounded off to 4.6 billion years for the age of the sun.
Anyways, clarity through scientific discussion is a good thing.
@JRS
Agreed, it's important to speak in exact (or at least as close as one can) terms when possible otherwise hyperbole begins and that's a slippery slope.
I read this book..This planet was originally a part of earth and it wasn't kicked out it left fourth dimensionally soon to dance back into our system again***It maybe science fiction but I like the thought better.
Computer simulations of this sort are so spurious that I can hardly believe them. For instance, a lot of them were done in the 80s to predict likely planetary configurations and all of them predicted small rocky bodies in the inner system and large gas giants in the outer system. However, recent observations indicate that other systems are very common.
Will these new simulations just match the known data and completely fail to predict the next datapoint? I think so.
Interesting theories, but totally irrelevant for living on this planet today -- unless you get government grants to study this sort of stuff instead of holding down a real job.
Irrelevant you say?!! Poppycock! We can just as easily simulate what happens when a planet made of antimatter collides at the speed of light with Paris Hilton's face. Will we hear the universe call out "BOOM HEADSHOT!!!!", followed by thunderous applause from quintillions of sentient beings throughout the cosmos? Who knows? Let's find out. >:oD
Irrelevent? Nothing is are discovered but for by people who ask "what if" and "why". What relevence was it that the planets orbit the sun? What relevence was it that that the world is round? How relevent was it that you could take this stick, put another stick with it and throw the second stick farther? People who think an idea is irrelevent are like those who laughed at those stupid sailors setting out to fall off the edge of the world, or who think the sum of all knowledge that exists is contained in some religious tenents.
I absolutely love articles like these. You give these guys an education and a computer and they come up with these scenarios. Then we print the article and act like it really happened. Well, I have a few ideas my self. I have a education and a computer too. My scenario is that there once was a fairy named Morry. He fell asleep and dreamed this universe up. He's been asleep for a long while and we'd better hope he never wakes up. Because if he does....................
..........his breath will be worse than the Jabberwock's
NOOOOO!!!! You've stolen my doctoral thesis!! Now The History Channel will never accept me -_-
Actually, our entire 'Universe' is just an ongoing 'Computer Simulation' within a larger frame of reality. The whole thing is set up to test whether or not oxygen breathing bipedal mammalians can actually develop a high level intelligence.....and so far it is not looking good for the mammalians bipeds: too many self destructive tendencies to really get a long lasting, stable, highly intelligent civilization without them blowing themselves or their neighbors to bits.
There is hope though, there are rumors of updated programming, new test parameters and outside tweaks to the system.
I love how people start a pissing contest over "estimated time periods".
"It was 5 bil!! no its 4.7 bil you fool! Ha ha ha! You're both wrong! Dummies.
Yes, because the Earth is only 6000 years old. Clearly any suggestion otherwise is tomfoolery by those crazy scientists with their ridiculous "facts".
No, that wasn't the point. The point was that it could be 4.8 or 4.9 or any other number really. One estimate of many, thats all that number really is.
In the Bible Yoda clearly states, CLEARLY states, that the Earth is only 6000 years old. How can you possibly refute that? You can't. Because Yoda isn't real, or in the Bible. And as we all know it's impossible to disprove something that someone who isn't real and isn't in the Bible said.
I win. Science refuted.
The bible doesn't say that. It was an estimate made by adding up ages. You just sound even dumber here than some of your other close minded comments...
So then what is it with the Jewish Year? Isn't that pretty accurate?
Given that science claims a 10 billion year window for the time of the Big Bang (10-20 billion years ago) I find it a little hubristic to claim some moral highground regarding the age of the Earth. Just sayin'.
Mark - You need to catch up. The date is set at 13.7 billion years, no 10 billion year window.
TReed- It was 5-7 billion when I was a schoolboy. How long until that 13.7 number gets "updated" in the light of new data?
And Columbus thought he was in India. You know, it's not that it "changes" it's that we get more accurate. The better we can measure, the more accurate we can get. The more accurate number is always different from the less accurate number.
To be more precise, Columbus though he was going to India.
My point stands: these oft-engaged "Science > Religon" masturbatory sessions are... ready?... unscientific.
Mark - The age is set at 13.75 +- 0.13 billion years based off of the WMAP observations, which was to view the microwave background from the early universe.
TReed- Well, why didn't you say so in the first place! I now see and understand why making fun of an outdated belief ("Flat Earth" anyone?) that the world is 6000 and ascribing it to Religion is perfectly fine, since science has the age of the Universe known down to an exact date, give or take 130,000,000 years.
Perfectly logical.
I'm sure when my kid is my age now that there will be someone else on the 'net taking your POV too, since mankind will have some other newer, more sensitive instrument to prove it is 42 Billion years old.
Mark - A lack of understanding on how something is determined, doesn't make your belief correct. It just means you don't understand. If you can't accept what is considered strongly accurate is not my problem. I am merely stating what science is saying the age of the universe is. Basically, correcting the misinformation you put forth for others who may not know the currently accepted age of the universe. If you don't like science or understand science, that is your perogative.
I am curious as to which decade you read that the universe was 5 to 7 billion years old. I have just never heard the age that low.
I am compelled to ask the same question as TReed here. I have NEVER heard anyone suggest that the universe is 5-7 billion years old nor can I ever recall that being proposed as the age of the universe. Did you go to school in Mississippi or Texas? That would explain a lot.
TReed - You see, hubris. Why you seem to think I don't understand what you're talking about is your failing.
Correction is fine. Beliittling while ascribing an idea to a group is not. Would you be happy if I compared all scientists to Dr. Mengele? Of course not.
Now, if you can look up this thread and tell me exactly which poster was sincerely stating the world was 6000 years old, I'd buy you a drink. We both know that didn't happen.
The early 1970s. Back then we had things called books, which didn't get updated every 30 seconds. When that particular science book was written? Who knows.
Tell you what though: sometime Google "used book fair" and find one in your area. Check out the science section and see how much has changed over the last 10-15 years, nevermind 20-40. You'd be amazed what you could lean about how wrong things have been. And I mean that in terms of science, history, religon and every other field of human endeavor.
Presence: No, I'm from Bridgeport, which as any scientifically minded person knows is in Connecticut. Also, I find your slander of random southern states to be as repulsive as the worship of Global Warming.
Mark - One has to wonder what you were reading. I graduated in '79 from highschool. I was in advanced classes since 8th grade. I started out in aerospace engineering, ended up with a BS in Math and a MS in Software Engineering and I have a cousin who teaches physics and I have never heard the 5 - 7 billion age.
And for books, well lets see which one I should read, see there is Relativity by Albert Einstein, or Quantum Mechanics by Richard Feynman, or The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene ( I am waiting for his Fabric of the Cosmos to be delivered), or maybe more on the math side of things, group theory, tensor calculus, supersymmetry, or maybe one of the three books on differential geometry, or my personal favorite Methods of Information Geometry by Amari and Nagaoka. And God forbid all of those computer books or computational neuroscience books. With history and religion, the Malleus Maleficarum is interesting, the original text was published in 1428 with the first English translation in 1620. I'm still waiting for my first edition of Witchcraft by Charles Williams. Both are theologic works. Considering that I have close to 150 books at my house. I've started collecting rare and first edition books. I've got 4 of the 8 rainbow fairy books to read to my grandchildren. So I have books, I read books and most are advanced mathematics and advanced science books. Do you need one to read? BTW - There is a Bridgeport in WV.
I live in the south, therefore, I have first hand experience with the bias that is taught in those schools. I find your blind distrust for empirical evidence repulsive.
TReed: As I said... if you've never heard of it, it must not have ever been. </sarcasm> But please, feel free to keep preening.
As for books, I'm a big fan of Feynman and have read Relativity as well as a number of works by Gribbin, Davies, and Weinburg . However, I give pause that you felt the need to go into this after I point out what was in an old text book while debating the fringes, not the actual topic: that this particular thread is nothing but a feel-good "science is superior" circle jerk. Also, I am *not* anti-science, yet you're increasingly treating me as such.
Yeah, and Moscow is in Idaho. Fyi, Bridgeport is in Connecticut, and is bigger than Salt Lake City or Louisville. Surely when I say "Louisville" you don't think of Alabama, do you?
In summary, feel free to reply but I'm basically done debating fringe issues on my central tenant: that baseless ridicule belongs on the school playground at best. Actually, scratch that. Because if you're against that idea I have no need to talk to you anyway. See you around.
Presence: Good, now that you've gotten the tit-for-tat insults out of your system... let's move along, eh?
Things that make you go hmmmm
conjecture.
I think a giant Asteroid flew past, and caused havok with the planets. And I mean GIANT, bigger than Jupiter. Its going to come by again one day, on its massive orbit. And its travelling very fast.
Do you know what an asteroid the size of a planet is called? A PLANET.
HAHAHA Good stuff.
Not if it hasn't "cleared it's orbit"...
It has not cleared it's galactic orbit of debris, it is not spherical in shape and no group of Astronomers has made a ruling as to whether or not it is a planet........
Hate to break it to you, but that is physically impossible. Once a rocky planet/planetoid reaches a certain size, its gravity no longer allows gases and other matter to escape and begins the process of accretion, which results in the creation of either a gas giant or a star (depending on the amount of available material, rate of accretion, etc). It is also believed that at a specific mass (don't ask me what, but some forums have suggested anything in excess of 15-20 times earth's mass) the planet collapses on itself, resulting in a liquid magma surface that cannot solidify due to the intense pressure on the core. This is then surrounded by the gases that are incapable of escaping the massive gravitational pull.
Isn't gravity wonderful?
Is a mind game for you;
Gravity = f( energy, bound states, solitons, orthogonal group, time)
Isn't gravity wonderful?
Here is a mind game for you;
Gravity = f( energy, bound states, solitons, orthogonal group, time)
So I guess its due back on 12/21/12? about midnight?
Midnight which time zone?
Gotta be the time zone the Mayans lived in. Right? Mountain time in the U.S.??
I fear your right, and we will name it Palin-Idiot. Named after the influence of stupid she spreads daily. Can someone get a quote on a cosmic theme for her bus??
she will soon open her mouth again and somehow her ideas have mutated into havoc, and no one knows the amount of collateral damage she will do when she attempts brain function on camera.
It will be a spectacularly horrific show to watch, I got dibbs on the front row.
It wasn't kicked out, it left because it needed some space
You win!
Best comment. :D
"...suggest Uranus and Neptune switched places as they moved out."
So we may have confused Uranus with a hole in the sky.
Read The Twelfth Planet (part 1 of the Earth Chronicles) by Sitchin. The planet is still a pat of the solar system, and it has a name: Nibiru. In the process of reading the book(s) you will not only learn our solar system's history--but you will know ours.
All the crazies are having a field day here today with the insane comments. I bet none of them actually read the paper before posting, and don't understand the simple point that the prediction is statistical.
I know. It's disheartening actually. It's also quite sad to see the blatant attacks on science happening here.
Chaos Theory, anyone?
One event is certain: A giant of our solar system has drawn water and probably meteorites too from the surface of planet Mars by an almost exidental close orbit.
Certain? I'd call the event you describe bloody unlikely.
Yah, evidence of such.?? Even any computer simulation? NONE that I've ever heard. In fact, I like hearing all possible theories on our planetary formation (even the implausable ones) and this is the first time I've heard this one. Please include links, book titles, essays in scientific journals, that type of thing.........
So I have a question.
What would a free Neptune or Jupiter even look like? Would it get so cold without any solar energy that it's atmosphere would precipitate out? If so, how long would that take? How much smaller would Jupiter be if there were no elements in gas form?
Also, an ejected Neptune sounds like a very simple and plausible explanation for the Late Heavy Bombardment... Nothing like a planet on it's way out to shake up the KBOs
Well, in the case of a free Jupiter, it would be radiating its own heat. Present day Jupiter radiates as much heat as it receives from the Sun.
Also, for elements to change state, pressure in addition to temperature plays a part. So any free gaseous planet will still be gaseous (at least in its outer layers) simply because of the low pressures involved.
Of course it would be radiating its own heat, my question is how long would it take for it to cool off seeing as it has no energy inputs. Present day earth radiates as much heat as it receives from the sun as well.
True, a free floating planet of that size will always have some sort of atmosphere (I am somewhat familiar with the gas laws tyvm) But at cold enough temperatures, even hydrogen becomes a liquid (high enough pressures too but that's not what I'm talking about)
It was the aether that did it.
How would they ever prove this happened when it was billions of years ago? Also , who really gives a rats ass ,other than some nerd with super thick glasses ?
Some nerd with not-so-thick reading glasses?
Come on, dude, where is your curiosity?