Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* - - - - 1 votes

Earth and Jupiter connection


  • Please log in to reply
33 replies to this topic

#1    Scepticus

Scepticus

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 321 posts
  • Joined:22 Sep 2011
  • Gender:Male

  • Some people are too tired to give you a smile. Give them one of yours, as none needs a smile so much as he who has no more to give

Posted 09 April 2013 - 02:21 PM

Hi Everyone

Over in the ET section there's a discussion on about if Earth was a moon of Jupiter once. Found here: http://www.unexplain...5

I called on my friends which is an Astronomer to explain me if this was correct or not. Unfortunately he didn't have a lot of time as he is attending a conference this week.

Although he did have time* to explain me there is a theory which states that Earth and all other planets in the inner solar system originated from beyond Jupiter and its was actually Jupiter which pulled them into the inner solar system.

Anyone heard of this theory and would care to explain it. Also by definition of this theory could you say that Earth used to be a moon of Jupiter?

Thank you in advance


:D

* - Edit

Edited by Scepticus, 09 April 2013 - 02:24 PM.

The only way to get smarter is by playing a smarter opponent.

#2    Taun

Taun

    A dashing moose about town...

  • Member
  • 7,568 posts
  • Joined:19 May 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tornado Alley (Oklahoma)

Posted 09 April 2013 - 03:38 PM

I'm not a scientist - nor have I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express recently ( :D ) but using the definition as you wrote it out.. I would say "No"...  To be a moon (or other satellite) of Jupiter or any other planet, the Earth would have to orbit around Jupiter... This defintion seems to suggest that the planets were out in the outter system (past Jupiter) and orbiting the Sun (not Jupiter), but Jupiter's gravity pulled them in to eventually settle where they are now...

Personally I don't believe this theory... I have no data to back up my belief, it's just a belief... I believe that the planets more or less formed where they are currently orbiting...

I have been reading the thread(s) about this and absolutely NOTHING the original poster has put down as 'evidence' has made me to rethink my beliefs in the slightest (his purposefully atrocious grammer dosen't help his cause any either)...

Edited by Taun, 09 April 2013 - 03:39 PM.


#3    Mentalcase

Mentalcase

    Space Cadet

  • Member
  • 5,369 posts
  • Joined:23 Aug 2001
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chi-Town

  • Most Thugish Member of the Six Worst Men of the Apfelschnaps

Posted 09 April 2013 - 04:00 PM

It's a general belief that the rocky planets orbit closer to a sun. The gaseous planets further.

Edited by Mentalcase, 09 April 2013 - 04:01 PM.

http://ancientaliensdebunked.com/  <~Ancient Aliens DEBUNKED!
I think that it is much more likely that the reports of flying saucers are the results of the known irrational characteristics of terrestrial intelligence than of the unknown rational efforts of extra-terrestrial intelligence ~Richard Feynman http://www.myspace.com/7leafclover

#4    MR.Blueprint

MR.Blueprint

    Remote Viewer

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 529 posts
  • Joined:05 Jul 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • "Nothing Stays The Same" -Thomas Blueprint

Posted 09 April 2013 - 04:10 PM

View PostMentalcase, on 09 April 2013 - 04:00 PM, said:

It's a general belief that the rocky planets orbit closer to a sun. The gaseous planets further.

what bout pluto and other sub planets that orbit on the outside?

"Ignorance has no place in a debate" -Dr. Thomas Blueprint

#5    Mentalcase

Mentalcase

    Space Cadet

  • Member
  • 5,369 posts
  • Joined:23 Aug 2001
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chi-Town

  • Most Thugish Member of the Six Worst Men of the Apfelschnaps

Posted 09 April 2013 - 04:12 PM

View PostMR.Blueprint, on 09 April 2013 - 04:10 PM, said:

what bout pluto and other sub planets that orbit on the outside?

That would be an issue of dispersion and gravity.

http://ancientaliensdebunked.com/  <~Ancient Aliens DEBUNKED!
I think that it is much more likely that the reports of flying saucers are the results of the known irrational characteristics of terrestrial intelligence than of the unknown rational efforts of extra-terrestrial intelligence ~Richard Feynman http://www.myspace.com/7leafclover

#6    MR.Blueprint

MR.Blueprint

    Remote Viewer

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 529 posts
  • Joined:05 Jul 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • "Nothing Stays The Same" -Thomas Blueprint

Posted 09 April 2013 - 04:13 PM

View PostTaun, on 09 April 2013 - 03:38 PM, said:

I'm not a scientist - nor have I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express recently ( :D ) but using the definition as you wrote it out.. I would say "No"...  To be a moon (or other satellite) of Jupiter or any other planet, the Earth would have to orbit around Jupiter... This defintion seems to suggest that the planets were out in the outter system (past Jupiter) and orbiting the Sun (not Jupiter), but Jupiter's gravity pulled them in to eventually settle where they are now...

Personally I don't believe this theory... I have no data to back up my belief, it's just a belief... I believe that the planets more or less formed where they are currently orbiting...

I have been reading the thread(s) about this and absolutely NOTHING the original poster has put down as 'evidence' has made me to rethink my beliefs in the slightest (his purposefully atrocious grammer dosen't help his cause any either)...

its one theory that earth was made from the debri of jupiter
Ive been saying it a million times but i think yall thought i jus made this stuff up.

I seen that its a theory that jupiter was the first planet made and earth and other planets got what was left of the debri

so my theory that based on that theory

if jupiter was the first planet all the debri orbited it

"Ignorance has no place in a debate" -Dr. Thomas Blueprint

#7    MR.Blueprint

MR.Blueprint

    Remote Viewer

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 529 posts
  • Joined:05 Jul 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • "Nothing Stays The Same" -Thomas Blueprint

Posted 09 April 2013 - 04:14 PM

View PostMentalcase, on 09 April 2013 - 04:12 PM, said:

That would be an issue of dispersion and gravity.


whats the difference between mecury, our moon and pluto?

"Ignorance has no place in a debate" -Dr. Thomas Blueprint

#8    Mentalcase

Mentalcase

    Space Cadet

  • Member
  • 5,369 posts
  • Joined:23 Aug 2001
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chi-Town

  • Most Thugish Member of the Six Worst Men of the Apfelschnaps

Posted 09 April 2013 - 04:16 PM

View PostMR.Blueprint, on 09 April 2013 - 04:14 PM, said:

whats the difference between mecury, our moon and pluto?


Ahem. Dispersion and GRAVITY.

http://ancientaliensdebunked.com/  <~Ancient Aliens DEBUNKED!
I think that it is much more likely that the reports of flying saucers are the results of the known irrational characteristics of terrestrial intelligence than of the unknown rational efforts of extra-terrestrial intelligence ~Richard Feynman http://www.myspace.com/7leafclover

#9    Taun

Taun

    A dashing moose about town...

  • Member
  • 7,568 posts
  • Joined:19 May 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tornado Alley (Oklahoma)

Posted 09 April 2013 - 04:20 PM

View PostMR.Blueprint, on 09 April 2013 - 04:14 PM, said:

whats the difference between mecury, our moon and pluto?

Mercury and our moon have better PR agents...


#10    MR.Blueprint

MR.Blueprint

    Remote Viewer

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 529 posts
  • Joined:05 Jul 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • "Nothing Stays The Same" -Thomas Blueprint

Posted 09 April 2013 - 04:30 PM

View PostTaun, on 09 April 2013 - 04:20 PM, said:

Mercury and our moon have better PR agents...
haha

"Ignorance has no place in a debate" -Dr. Thomas Blueprint

#11    Taun

Taun

    A dashing moose about town...

  • Member
  • 7,568 posts
  • Joined:19 May 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tornado Alley (Oklahoma)

Posted 09 April 2013 - 04:31 PM

View PostMR.Blueprint, on 09 April 2013 - 04:13 PM, said:

its one theory that earth was made from the debri of jupiter
Ive been saying it a million times but i think yall thought i jus made this stuff up.

I seen that its a theory that jupiter was the first planet made and earth and other planets got what was left of the debri

so my theory that based on that theory

if jupiter was the first planet all the debri orbited it

Utter non-sense!... Just because Jupiter may (or may not) have been formed first DOES NOT MEAN THAT EVERY THING ORBITED IT!...

Let us assume then (for the sake of arguement) that Jupiter did indeed form first... What you would have is a large disk - or ring if you prefer - of dust stretching from near the sun out to where the Oort cloud would later form...

In the midst of that 'soup' of dust would be a (semi) cleared pathway where Jupiter formed and is orbiting, as it attracts the nearby dust to it... Then later as other planets begin forming (assuming they didn't start the same time Jupiter did), you would have similar tracks in the dust where they formed... They would not have formed, circling (orbiting) Jupiter! but orbiting either closer to the sun or further out as the case may be...

Had all the planets been formed orbiting Jupiter, they would have torn themselves apart by collisions and gravitational forces... Can you seriously see Saturn orbiting Jupiter? Along with Neptune and Uranus?... Seriously?...  And if by some major miracle of astro-physics, the planets avoided instant destruction... How would the sun be powerful enough to pull these planet/moons of Jupiter away, some to draw inward and some to cast outward into stable orbits - AND NOT TOUCH THE MOONS THAT ARE THERE TODAY?...

One more time in case you missed it... Just because Jupiter may (or may not) have been formed first DOES NOT MEAN THAT EVERY THING ORBITED IT!...

Hopefully that will be plain enough to understand...


#12    MR.Blueprint

MR.Blueprint

    Remote Viewer

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 529 posts
  • Joined:05 Jul 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • "Nothing Stays The Same" -Thomas Blueprint

Posted 09 April 2013 - 04:43 PM

View PostTaun, on 09 April 2013 - 04:31 PM, said:

Utter non-sense!... Just because Jupiter may (or may not) have been formed first DOES NOT MEAN THAT EVERY THING ORBITED IT!...

Let us assume then (for the sake of arguement) that Jupiter did indeed form first... What you would have is a large disk - or ring if you prefer - of dust stretching from near the sun out to where the Oort cloud would later form...

In the midst of that 'soup' of dust would be a (semi) cleared pathway where Jupiter formed and is orbiting, as it attracts the nearby dust to it... Then later as other planets begin forming (assuming they didn't start the same time Jupiter did), you would have similar tracks in the dust where they formed... They would not have formed, circling (orbiting) Jupiter! but orbiting either closer to the sun or further out as the case may be...

Had all the planets been formed orbiting Jupiter, they would have torn themselves apart by collisions and gravitational forces... Can you seriously see Saturn orbiting Jupiter? Along with Neptune and Uranus?... Seriously?...  And if by some major miracle of astro-physics, the planets avoided instant destruction... How would the sun be powerful enough to pull these planet/moons of Jupiter away, some to draw inward and some to cast outward into stable orbits - AND NOT TOUCH THE MOONS THAT ARE THERE TODAY?...

One more time in case you missed it... Just because Jupiter may (or may not) have been formed first DOES NOT MEAN THAT EVERY THING ORBITED IT!...

Hopefully that will be plain enough to understand...
Just because Jupiter may (or may not) have been formed first DOES NOT MEAN THAT EVERY THING ORBITED IT!...


yes u correct saturn, uranus and neptune did not orbit jupiter
i said that statement to generalize my point so ppl can get the picture

i dont believe the othe gas giants orbited jupiter ther were made rough as the sametime as jupiter

really all the bodies in our solar system was made at the same time in universe years
but jupiter saturn uranus and neptune, formed first


How would the sun be powerful enough to pull these planet/moons of Jupiter away, some to draw inward and some to cast outward into stable orbits - AND NOT TOUCH THE MOONS THAT ARE THERE TODAY?...

they did and these planets/moon clearly would be the on outer part of jupiter's orbit biggest reason why the sun pulled them away.. because they was leavin jupiter's gravitational grip and yes collision were frequent


and why do we interpret collision with planet explosion



just look at moons surface
collisions are part of the game in our universe

Edited by MR.Blueprint, 09 April 2013 - 04:46 PM.

"Ignorance has no place in a debate" -Dr. Thomas Blueprint

#13    Taun

Taun

    A dashing moose about town...

  • Member
  • 7,568 posts
  • Joined:19 May 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tornado Alley (Oklahoma)

Posted 09 April 2013 - 04:47 PM

View PostMR.Blueprint, on 09 April 2013 - 04:43 PM, said:

yes u correct saturn, uranus and neptune did not orbit jupiter



How would the sun be powerful enough to pull these planet/moons of Jupiter away, some to draw inward and some to cast outward into stable orbits - AND NOT TOUCH THE MOONS THAT ARE THERE TODAY?...

they did and these planets/moon clearly would be the on outer part of jupiter's orbit biggest reason why the sun pulled them away.. because they was leavin jupiter's gravitational grip and yes collision were frequent


and why do we interpret collision with planet explosion



just look at moons surface
collisions are part of the game in our universe

The moons surface scars were made by relatively small chucks of space debris... Two full sized planets colliding would leave no marks - it would obliterate both of them! - They might reform millions of years later - but there would be no craters from that collision...


#14    MR.Blueprint

MR.Blueprint

    Remote Viewer

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 529 posts
  • Joined:05 Jul 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • "Nothing Stays The Same" -Thomas Blueprint

Posted 09 April 2013 - 04:53 PM

View PostTaun, on 09 April 2013 - 04:47 PM, said:

The moons surface scars were made by relatively small chucks of space debris... Two full sized planets colliding would leave no marks - it would obliterate both of them! - They might reform millions of years later - but there would be no craters from that collision...

Two full sized planets colliding would leave no marks - it would obliterate both of them! - They might reform millions of years later - but there would be no craters from that collision...

ok apply this to your original question


and "two full size planets" whatever that mean can collide without being obliterated

if a smaller planet hits a bigger planets they both will have chunks exploded off and then reform and may become partner moons/planets

collisions happen everyday in space b

"Ignorance has no place in a debate" -Dr. Thomas Blueprint

#15    seeder

seeder

    Nut Cracker

  • Member
  • 14,114 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK. There if you need me

  • Never forget that only the weak fish swim with the stream, and a lie travels half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.

Posted 09 April 2013 - 05:57 PM

View PostTaun, on 09 April 2013 - 04:31 PM, said:

Utter non-sense!...

Hopefully that will be plain enough to understand...


:tu:    I wouldn't hold your breath on that...

It wasn’t the miners who got rich; it was the people selling picks and shovels. Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me... It's all the rabbit poop you stumble over on your way down...
“It's easier to fool people - than to convince them that they have been fooled.”  Mark Twain

"The tragedy of life is not that it ends so soon, but that we wait so long to begin it"




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users