We Live in the Rarest Type of Planetary System

[Mircea]

And some say that without the collision with another exo-planet billions of years ago that got earth spinning and formed our moon there would be no life at all on earth.

NASA's Moon Working Group availed itself of Cray's latest incarnation, the Cray Super II. For a little military/nuclear trivia, the US was able to take the data it had gained from nuclear weapons testing prior to the test bans and use the Cray Super II to model nuclear weapons designs. That's how we got the football and that's how we were able to create the new 8"/203 mm AFAP, plus the warhead for the Pershing II, and also the ERW warheads for the 8"/203 mm AFAPs and Lance Missile System, plus the warheads for the ACLMs, GCLMs, and SLCMs, and also design those cruise missiles themselves.

You can always tell the difference between experts and non-starters like Pukipedia hacks. I once verbally abused a professor for falsely claiming the Soviets had cruise missiles. They did not. They had non-ballistic missiles which are not the same thing as cruise missiles because cruise missiles fly nap-of-the-Earth; have forward and downward looking radars to avoid objects not in its internal mapping system; can change speeds; can be redirected in-flight; and can be re-targeted in-flight. Non-ballistic missiles cannot. To create a cruise missile, you must have a Cray Super II or its equivalent, and the Soviets did not, at least not until Clinton gave them two Cray Super IIs in the late 1990s.

In the early 1970s there were three theories for Moon:

1) Pinch Theory: Cray Super II flatly rejected that silly theory as if Earth could actually have an axial spin rapid enough to propel anything at speeds greater than 25,000 MPH

2) Capture Theory: In every simulation, Moon either sailed on by or crashed into Earth so that was rejected

3) Dual Coalescent Theory: Cray's Super II rejected that, too, which left scientists stymied.

Fast-forward 20 years and we have Cray's newest bestest super computer, the Big Red rivaling IBM's Big Blue which is why Clinton gave the Russians two Super IIs since we didn't need them.

NASA went back to the drawing board with new hopes:

1) Ejecta Theory: This is just a repackaged version by the Pinch Theory losers. Anyone with a brain knows that if ejecta could reach escape velocity it would keep sailing away in all directions which is exactly what Big Red said so that theory is dead.

2) Capture Theory: Big Red could do something the Super II could not do and that is examine every possible planetary alignment. Remember that gravity is a vector force and vectors are additive so is there any possible planetary alignment that would create conditions conducive to Earth capturing Moon? Big Red said "No." That theory is dead.

3) Dual Coalescent Theory: Oddly, Big Red rejected it once again, but Big Red did say something interesting which is that if Earth's mass was 18%-20% greater than it is now, then they could without affecting the conservation of angular momentum (yeah, and that's a big issue).

When was Earth 18%-20% more massive than it is now? When it was in the Asteroid Belt and got hit by a very large celestial body that knocked Earth into a new orbit and left debris from the collision in the Asteroid Belt (which is why there isn't enough mass there to have been a planet).

Earth was a massive ocean with no continents. The collision with the celestial body is what created the Pacific Ocean Basin. The force of the impact pushed continental material up creating a land mass.

It also made Earth tectonically active, and Earth has been trying to heal that wound for the last several Billion years. You'll notice the American Plates are moving west and the Asian plates are moving east and they will eventually collide somewhere out there in the Pacific Ocean creating a new huge super-continent that will break up and move around.

It will also at least partially fill in the Pacific Ocean Basin and sea levels will permanently rise leaving a bunch of "island continents" and ultimately, assuming there's enough time before Sun becomes a Red Giant, Earth will be nothing but ocean with no land masses. There'll be nothing but a few scattered island chains.

 

[RogueWarrior]

we only have semi-quasi-intimate knowledge of one planetary system...speculating about a single data point is asinine.

 

[Maidenrules29]

But it matters not, the distances involved make it impossible to travel there anyway.

And not just for us. Any other intelligent life out there could never have the means to get here either. The fantasy about "Alien visitors" is just that. I cannot believe how many gullible people subscribe to this notion.

 

[Mach]

And not just for us. Any other intelligent life out there could never have the means to get here either. The fantasy about "Alien visitors" is just that. I cannot believe how many gullible people subscribe to this notion.

Exactly.
And if they could, the idea they'd come here to dick around in corn fields or drop a body off at area51, or help the skinwalkers and skinwalker ranch, is just crazy on top.
I know people..like..family of friends, who watch this stuff on TV and believe it all. They are normal otherwise..had careers, intelligent, but completely and totally bought into this stuff. It is amazing, and unfortunate.

 

[Maidenrules29]

Exactly.
And if they could, the idea they'd come here to dick around in corn fields or drop a body off at area51, or help the skinwalkers and skinwalker ranch, is just crazy on top.
I know people..like..family of friends, who watch this stuff on TV and believe it all. They are normal otherwise..had careers, intelligent, but completely and totally bought into this stuff. It is amazing, and unfortunate.

My wife watches all that shit lol. I just roll my eyes at her.

 

[iguanaman]

Exactly.
And if they could, the idea they'd come here to dick around in corn fields or drop a body off at area51, or help the skinwalkers and skinwalker ranch, is just crazy on top.
I know people..like..family of friends, who watch this stuff on TV and believe it all. They are normal otherwise..had careers, intelligent, but completely and totally bought into this stuff. It is amazing, and unfortunate.

My feelings about UFO's is that if any are real they are far more likely to be earthlings from the future because they have succeeded in doing time travel. At least that would explain why they are so secretive since any changes in their past are so dangerous for them. Even if aliens could travel thru worm holes or some other science fictional method finding earth among the billions of stars is virtually impossible.

 

[Maidenrules29]

they are far more likely to be earthlings from the future because they have succeeded in doing time travel.

NOT likely.

 

[iguanaman]

NOT likely.

More likely than aliens is what I said. I agree though, time travel is probably impossible.

 

[Oozlefinch]

That means there are only a few billion just like it out there.

Out of an estimated 200 billion in our galaxy alone?

That is an almost statistically figure.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Complex life like ourselves exceedingly rare IMO.

Mostly because it seems to rely upon a huge number of variables being just right.

Something that is regularly not considered is the fact that we had a collision with a similar sized body about 4.5 billion years ago that gave us two things more than anything other than being in the "Goldilocks Zone" to allow life to evolve and thrive.

First, it gave us an unusually large moon to act as a barrier to stop many large asteroids that could have struck us. And secondly, it gave us a super-sized magnetic core that is still going and producing a magnetosphere. That is ultimately what "killed" Mars, as its magnetosphere ended about 4.2 billion years ago and it cooled and the solar winds stripped away most of the atmosphere there.

By most calculations, our own core will remain molten and the magnetosphere persist for another 5 billion years or so. Long enough for our planet to be engulfed by the sun when it enters its Red Giant phase.

Of all the planets in the system, ours is unique. Of the four rocky planets, both Venus and Mars lost theirs. And Mercury kept theirs not through the size of their core but through gravitational tidal effects because it is so close to the sun. Otherwise, it would have gone cold billions of years ago like Mars and Venus. And if Earth had not captured Thea early on it also would have died billions of years ago.

That is one thing that should always be remembered. Of the two planets closest to Earth in size and mass, we are the only one to retain a molten core. The core of both Mars and Venus went cold billions of years ago.

 

[Oozlefinch]

More likely than aliens is what I said. I agree though, time travel is probably impossible.

Only backwards. It has been proven it is possible to "time travel" to the future however. The only thing is that it is a one way trip.

 

[iguanaman]

Only backwards. It has been proven it is possible to "time travel" to the future however. The only thing is that it is a one way trip.

LOL I'm pretty sure time travel either way is equally far fetched. I read somewhere that the energy needed to bend the "fabric of space/time" is more than humans are capable of.

 

[Gordy327]

Only backwards. It has been proven it is possible to "time travel" to the future however. The only thing is that it is a one way trip.

So that's kind of like reverse Terminator time travel rules, rather than Back to the Future rules?

 

[Oozlefinch]

LOL I'm pretty sure time travel either way is equally far fetched. I read somewhere that the energy needed to bend the "fabric of space/time" is more than humans are capable of.

No, time dilation related to velocity is a real thing and proven.

Now I am not saying it is actually workable in any meaningful way, but the closer one gets to C, the more time dilates to those traveling at those speeds in comparison to those that are not. It requires no "bending" at all, simply being able to get fast enough.

 

[Oozlefinch]

So that's kind of like reverse Terminator time travel rules, rather than Back to the Future rules?

No special rules, it's literally "Special Relativity".

 

[Gordy327]

No special rules, it's literally "Special Relativity".

I was being facetious.

 

[gboisjo]

The idea that a species - any species - could "harm" a planet is hubris beyond belief. By "human" I am referring to all up-right walking primates, which includes the ~20 various species that predate homo erectus or homo sapiens, which date back to around 4 million years. Just as you included a wide variety of different species in your dinosaur analogy.

We just happen to have some very sick and twisted people who hate their own species so badly that they want to do everything in their power to wipe them out completely. You may have heard of them, they are commonly referred to as leftists. It was those same leftists who were responsible for 100+ million deaths during the last century alone.

Yours is not science its far right politics.

 

[Glitch]

If the moon can be mined for fuel, that would be more cost effective than sending fuel to orbit via rockets, as well as being a refueling station.

Not if you make the rockets land on the moon first in order to be refueled. It would save a lot more fuel if the fuel were sent into orbit from the moon, rather than having the rocket use fuel to land and then use even more fuel to take off again. Mine and refine the fuel on the moon, then launch it into orbit where it can be collected and used in a space station.

 

[gboisjo]

That is a distinct possibility. While they would certainly benefit from increased sunlight, while moving further away, they won't have much time to enjoy it. The sun will continue to shed mass, becoming what we call a "planetary nebula" (even though the process has nothing to do with planets).

Planetary nebula | Definition, Temperature, Size, & Facts | Britannica

Planetary nebula, any of a class of bright nebulae that are expanding shells of luminous gas expelled by dying stars. They have a relatively round compact appearance rather than the chaotic patchy shapes of other nebulae—hence their name, which was given because of their resemblance to planetary

www.britannica.com

Eventually, the only thing that will be left of the sun's core is carbon-oxygen degenerate matter we call a White Dwarf approximately 30% of its original mass. Initially, the White Dwarf will be very hot. It will start off around 100,000°K, but over the next billion years or so cool off to around 10,000°K. It will continue to cool reaching around 2,000°K after another 10 billion years.

Its interesting how stars die, our sun will eventually enter the White Dwarf stage of death and could remain so for billions if not trillions of years.

Eventually becoming a Black Dwarf, the ultimate stage of stellar evolution ..because they emit no heat or light, these objects are almost impossible to detect.

Depending on the size of a star its end is unique, none of them die easily.

 

[Gordy327]

Not if you make the rockets land on the moon first in order to be refueled. It would save a lot more fuel if the fuel were sent into orbit from the moon, rather than having the rocket use fuel to land and then use even more fuel to take off again. Mine and refine the fuel on the moon, then launch it into orbit where it can be collected and used in a space station.

That is essentially what I said. The moon would be a primary fueling base. Even launching and landing on the moon would be better given the lower gravity.

 

[gboisjo]

If the moon can be mined for fuel, that would be more cost effective than sending fuel to orbit via rockets, as well as being a refueling station.

Your right, NASA's long term goal is to make everything using natural resources from the moon.

Same goes for Mars.

 

[Gordy327]

Your right, NASA's long term goal is to make everything using natural resources from the moon.

Same goes for Mars.

It's just a question of getting there and extracting the resources.

 

[gboisjo]

Creationism is so unpopular now they have to dog whistle their views just like they do with their bigotry.

Go to the "beliefs" section of the forum and read the ridiculous attempts to justify Creationism.

Everything from humans being created some 6,000 years ago.

To God having created everything before Adam and Eve so there would be world for them to move around in.

You can't make this stuff up, they believe.

 

[Glitch]

If you read the article, the claim is unsupported. Not only is it unsupported, they outright lied.

Stars are grouped/classed based in part on their size and also in part on the visible light they emit.

While it is true that size is a secondary characteristic used to classify stars, the primary characteristic is its surface temperature. Not its spectrum. With regard to Main Sequence stars, this is how they are classified:

• O = > 30,001 °K
• B = 10,001 – 30,000 °K
• A = 7,501 – 10,000 °K
• F = 6,001 – 7,500°K
• G = 5,201 – 6,000 °K
• K = 3,701 – 5,200 °K
• M = 2,400 – 3,700 °K

They are further classified by temperatures with 0 being the hottest, and 9 being the coolest. With a surface temperature of 5,793.2 °K, our sun is classified as a G2V (the V = Main Sequence).

The larger stars which dwarf our Sun have 0-2 planets at most because when they form they suck up most of the material in their region.

Not true. There are numerous stars larger than our sun with multiple planets orbiting. The reason life is not likely to be found on O, B, and A class stars is because they do not live for very long. We are talking about life-spans of less than a few hundred million years. Furthermore, all O, B, and A class stars are 10 times or more massive than Sol. Which means that they will end their short lives in a core-collapse supernova. A supernova would either completely destroy any planets in its solar system, or sterilize them killing any life that might have existed.

The smaller stars, the G/K/M-Class stars all have 6-12 planets because they do not suck up all the material before igniting and leave plenty of material to form both terrestrial and gaseous planets.

So do the larger stars. The size the star has absolutely nothing to do with the number of planets it has in orbit. We've even discovered three planets orbiting a pulsar; one tiny, and two planets at least 3 times the mass of Earth.

While F-class stars do not live as long as G-class stars, they are still a viable option for life. The closest F-class stars that include known planets are Upsilon Andromedae, Tau Boötis, HD 10647, HD 33564, HD 142, HD 60532, and KOI-3010.

Why?

I don't know. What I do know is that stars form in regions of space where other stars have died and that there are 3 ways a star can die and yield material by going super-nova, nova, or just cast-off. The latter is what our Sun will do. It will expand into a Red Giant but instead of going nova/supernova, it will cast off the outer layer and then collapse into a White Dwarf.

...

All G/K/M-Class stars have planets but those researchers wouldn't know that because no one looks at those star systems, even though they are in close proximity to Earth.

Their unsubstantiated conclusions might actually apply to larger stars but in no way apply to G/K/M-Class stars.



Good for them. I hope they do. NASA can hire lots of Indian and Chinese engineers to make it happen since Americans aren't sufficiently motivated.

Not all G, K, or M class main sequence stars have planets. Approximately 60% of them have at least one planet.

While M-class stars will live the longest by far, they are not the best star for supporting life. They are incredibly cool as far as stars go, which makes the habitable zone for M-class stars extremely close. The star K2-18, for example, orbits an M2.8 class star with a maximum habitable zone range of just 0.1 AU. Or Proxima Centauri, which is classified as an M5.5Ve with a maximum habitable zone range of just 0.09 AU because it is cooler than K2-18. Both are flare stars, and with their respective habitable zones being so close to the star, any planet would be subject to the blasts of those solar flares, effectively sterilizing any planet.

The best stars for long-term development of life are the F, G, and K class stars, preferably in either elliptical or lenticular galaxies, where there is an even distribution of stars. Stars in globular clusters, or in a densely populated areas of irregular or spiral galaxies (such as the spiral arms of our Milky Way galaxy) are less likely to be able to support life in the long term. Each solar system needs at least one light year of separation, otherwise they would interfere with each other's development.

 

[Glitch]

Yes, they are using the wrong model which means they either reject Kepler's and Newton's laws or they are ignoring them.

There's a good reason our Solar System is modeled and it is in keeping with Kepler/Newtonian Laws and part of that reason is this.....



Earth was already spinning and had a moon prior to that collision in what we now call the Asteroid Belt.

I will show you what Kepler/Newtonian Laws say.

http://cse.ssl.berkeley.edu/AtHomeAs...datasheet.html

Mercury is 35,983,610 miles from the Sun. If we double that, we get 71,967,220 miles. Where is Venus?

Venus is 67,232,360 miles from the Sun. The percent difference is 6.8%

Mars is 141,635,300 miles from the Sun. Kepler/Newton say Mars should be at 134,464,720 miles from the Sun The percent difference is 5.2%

The Asteroid Belt is 260,276,259 miles from Sun. Kepler/Newton say it should be 268,929,440 miles. The percent difference is 3.3% deviation.

Jupiter should be 520,552,518 miles from Sun but it is 483,632,000 miles with a 7.4% difference.

Saturn is 888,188,000 miles distant and Kepler/Newton say it ought to be 967,264,000 miles from the Sun and the percent difference is 8.5%.

If we double Saturn's distance to 1,776,376,000 miles, then we find Uranus at 1,783,950,000 miles for an error margin of only 0.4%.

Doubling Uranus we get 3,567,900,000 miles and Neptune is at 2,798,842,000 miles which is 24.2%.

The percent differences can be explained by gravitational perturbations by other planets and objects. The explanation for Jupiter's size might be that early on there were two stars were forming in a binary-star system but Jupiter wasn't able to amass a sufficient quantity of material for ignition.

Our Earth formed in the Asteroid Belt and then was shunted to this orbit after a collision. Kepler and Newton prove it as you can plainly see.

Note that "AU" is an artificial construct being the distance from Sun to Earth and so applying it to other solar systems is a massive logical and scientific fail.

You went through a lot of mathematical juggling for nothing. You know that none of the planet have the orbits you specified, right? Every planet has a semi-major axis, which I presume is what you used. However, that only gives you the average orbital distance. Every planet also has some small eccentricity in its orbit, which make the perihelion much closer and the aphelion much further away than you have specified.

While Kepler improved upon Copernicus, Newton improved upon Kepler. But then Einstein also improved upon Newton. Newton's model does not take into consideration the curvature of space and time. It took all four to give us a more complete picture of how our solar system works, and there is no magical mathematically ratio between the orbital distances of planets.