Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
MR.Blueprint

It something bout jupiter

251 posts in this topic

how would everything be called moons

i dont cae what you call them as long as jupiter and earth is not in the same class or has the same title

and pluto and mecury should also have the same title

earth is closer to our moon and pluto than it is jupiter

Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick! Even according to your theory that the inner planets may have been moons at one time they are clearly planets now and not moons any longer! Moons specifically orbit planets! None of the currently classified planets orbit other planets! How...what...I don't even..... :wacko:

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think we know enough about all possible solar systems to assume a gas giant's "normal" place in a particular system. It is true that some orbit close in, in fact it is the size and close proximity to their star that probably allowed us to determine their existence in the first place (Earth sized planets are much more difficult to detect in other star systems). We know only a few hundred systems in a sea of billions of stars in our galaxy alone.

Most theories of planetary formation have an accretion disc of dust and gas largely in one plane around its star, with gravity pulling the bits together to form ever larger bodies. Some animators or computer simulations show early planets and moons striking each other like billiard balls, some being destroyed, some coallessing to form the planets we see today.

Earth is quite large compared to most moons. If you take Titan, the largest moon in our solar system if memory serves, something big would have to exert a gravitation force strong enough to pull it away from Saturn and send it towards the sun. That would be some object, because Saturn's gravitational hold on its moons is second only to Jupiter. As Titan fell towards the sun, its orbit would be almost like that of a short period comet assuming that it went into orbit at all. The wrong approach to the sun could send it off into space, never to return to our solar system. And how would an object with such an eccentric orbit similar to a comet's, ever settle into a gentle ellipse like that of the earth? Seems much more likely the planets formed more or less where they are today.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick! Even according to your theory that the inner planets may have been moons at one time they are clearly planets now and not moons any longer! Moons specifically orbit planets! None of the currently classified planets orbit other planets! How...what...I don't even..... :wacko:

I sometimes wonder what it must be like to have that much CAOS in the brain.

Meds?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sometimes wonder what it must be like to have that much CAOS in the brain.

Meds?

Please don't group us "medicated" with this raving madman!

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how would everything be called moons

i dont cae what you call them as long as jupiter and earth is not in the same class or has the same title

and pluto and mecury should also have the same title

earth is closer to our moon and pluto than it is jupiter

stonedSmiley.png

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

earth is closer to our moon and pluto than it is jupiter

..What?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

..What?

I think (well, I hope...) he means they are closer in size.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think (well, I hope...) he means they are closer in size.

Just read the entire thread and honestly I'm surprised anybody can make any sense of such gibberish at all. Can someone explain what he means? It does seem my English is not quite up to par on this challenge.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

..What?

closer

as

in

characteristic

what else could it mean

plz leave this thread

you cant comprehend the simplest statement

you have no place on this thread

thx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think we know enough about all possible solar systems to assume a gas giant's "normal" place in a particular system. It is true that some orbit close in, in fact it is the size and close proximity to their star that probably allowed us to determine their existence in the first place (Earth sized planets are much more difficult to detect in other star systems). We know only a few hundred systems in a sea of billions of stars in our galaxy alone.

Most theories of planetary formation have an accretion disc of dust and gas largely in one plane around its star, with gravity pulling the bits together to form ever larger bodies. Some animators or computer simulations show early planets and moons striking each other like billiard balls, some being destroyed, some coallessing to form the planets we see today.

Earth is quite large compared to most moons. If you take Titan, the largest moon in our solar system if memory serves, something big would have to exert a gravitation force strong enough to pull it away from Saturn and send it towards the sun. That would be some object, because Saturn's gravitational hold on its moons is second only to Jupiter. As Titan fell towards the sun, its orbit would be almost like that of a short period comet assuming that it went into orbit at all. The wrong approach to the sun could send it off into space, never to return to our solar system. And how would an object with such an eccentric orbit similar to a comet's, ever settle into a gentle ellipse like that of the earth? Seems much more likely the planets formed more or less where they are today.

something big would have to exert a gravitation force strong enough to pull it away from Saturn and send it towards the sun

saturn in further out

and i would call our moon something big

or

Some animators or computer simulations show early planets and moons striking each other like billiard balls,

And how would an object with such an eccentric orbit similar to a comet's, ever settle into a gentle ellipse like that of the earth?

size and time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick! Even according to your theory that the inner planets may have been moons at one time they are clearly planets now and not moons any longer! Moons specifically orbit planets! None of the currently classified planets orbit other planets! How...what...I don't even..... :wacko:

what bout a planets sized asteroid in the asteroid belt what would that be classified as?

the definition for planet and moons are too bland ad not saying anything

jupiter and earth shouldnt be classified as the same thing it will only hinder research with new solar systems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just read the entire thread and honestly I'm surprised anybody can make any sense of such gibberish at all. Can someone explain what he means? It does seem my English is not quite up to par on this challenge.

I wouldnt worry about it, TS,... We have people here from all over the world, many with good solid educations and extremely knowledgeable in their fields. We have amateur astronomers and people that do physics for a living. We have veritable google wizards that can dig up pretty much anything, as long as it is on the internet. We have "open minded" hard-core paranormal believers who buys pretty much every and all wild claims ever posted here at UM.

None of them seem to be able to make sense of Blueprints unintelligible language/grammar or senseless ideas.

This is as close to the definition of nonsense as we ever will get - "Subject matter, behavior, and language that is foolish and absurd."

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

what bout a planets sized asteroid in the asteroid belt what would that be classified as?

The total mass of the asteroid belt is estimated to be 2.8×1021 to 3.2×1021 kilograms, which is just 4% of the mass of the Moon.[2] The four largest objects, Ceres, 4 Vesta, 2 Pallas, and 10 Hygiea, account for half of the belt's total mass, with almost one-third accounted for by Ceres alone.

in pidgin inglish den for ya....(sic)...der aint no assteroid big as a planit, (innit...)

edit for source

http://en.wikipedia....Characteristics

.

Edited by seeder
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The total mass of the asteroid belt is estimated to be 2.8×1021 to 3.2×1021 kilograms, which is just 4% of the mass of the Moon.[2] The four largest objects, Ceres, 4 Vesta, 2 Pallas, and 10 Hygiea, account for half of the belt's total mass, with almost one-third accounted for by Ceres alone.

edit for source

http://en.wikipedia....Characteristics

.

the asteroid belt's only dwarf planet, is about 950 km in diameter

why would one asteroid be consider a dwarf planet?

by definition all the asteroids in the asteroid belt should be know as sub planets or dwarf planets

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the asteroid belt's only dwarf planet, is about 950 km in diameter

why would one asteroid be consider a dwarf planet?

by definition all the asteroids in the asteroid belt should be know as sub planets or dwarf planets

Best go tell that to Space.com and NASA. Im sure they will be horrified they got their facts wrong

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The total mass of the asteroid belt is estimated to be 2.8×1021 to 3.2×1021 kilograms, which is just 4% of the mass of the Moon.[2] The four largest objects, Ceres, 4 Vesta, 2 Pallas, and 10 Hygiea, account for half of the belt's total mass, with almost one-third accounted for by Ceres alone.

in pidgin inglish den for ya....(sic)...der aint no assteroid big as a planit, (innit...)

edit for source

http://en.wikipedia....Characteristics

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=245841&st=180

.

Ceres, the asteroid belt's only dwarf planet, is about 950 km in diameter

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_belt

is that english?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Best go tell that to Space.com and NASA. Im sure they will be horrified they got their facts wrong

i think nasa knows it got it wrong and will accept that

open minded can accept when something news is discovered proving what we thought to be right to be rong

only closed minded ppl nvr accept the new

you cant tell them they are wrong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

is that english?

Unfortunately for you, yes it is.

Edited by Hazzard
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Best go tell that to Space.com and NASA. Im sure they will be horrified they got their facts wrong

by definition a star in a binary system should be known as a planet because it orbits another star?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately for you, yes it is.

From your link - The asteroid belt is occupied by numerous irregularly shaped bodies called asteroids or minor planets. Not to be confused with Dwarf planet.

you are the most pointless person here

whats ur point

that they are called minor planets not dwarf planets?

my point was its planets in the asteroid belt

by definition all the asteroid should be know as planets then

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And now for the 4th time, what has this to do with ET/UFO section of the forum??

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And now for the 4th time, what has this to do with ET/UFO section of the forum??

for the fifth time we talking bout places that can harbor ets

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay i have read about 5-6 pages of this thread and had to reply. Dont know if anybody else have already written what im going write.

But first of all. The reason why people call Jupiter a failed star is because its made of the same elements as our Sun. The problem with Jupiter is that its not massive enough to have the internal pressure and temperature necessary to cause hydrogen to fuse to helium.

Its probably just an accident that Jupiter never became a star because of our Sun in the beginning days of our solar system grabbed most of the mass. This is also why your theory "Earth is a moon of Jupiter" cannot stick.

The reason why people in the early days of modern astronomy might have thought that Jupiter could have been a star is because our Solar system is very unusual. Most of the stars in our sky is part of a binary, triple or higher multiple star system.

However Mr. Blueprint is right one thing. The Asteroids in the Asteroid Belt are minor planets.

:D

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

for the fifth time we talking bout places that can harbor ets

then why do you manically go on about the size of asteroids, planets and dwarfs? So where are the planets/or moons/ or big lumps of rock that harbor ET life then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay i have read about 5-6 pages of this thread and had to reply. Dont know if anybody else have already written what im going write.

But first of all. The reason why people call Jupiter a failed star is because its made of the same elements as our Sun. The problem with Jupiter is that its not massive enough to have the internal pressure and temperature necessary to cause hydrogen to fuse to helium.

Its probably just an accident that Jupiter never became a star because of our Sun in the beginning days of our solar system grabbed most of the mass. This is also why your theory "Earth is a moon of Jupiter" cannot stick.

The reason why people in the early days of modern astronomy might have thought that Jupiter could have been a star is because our Solar system is very unusual. Most of the stars in our sky is part of a binary, triple or higher multiple star system.

However Mr. Blueprint is right one thing. The Asteroids in the Asteroid Belt are minor planets.

:D

Its probably just an accident that Jupiter never became a star because of our Sun in the beginning days of our solar system grabbed most of the mass. This is also why your theory "Earth is a moon of Jupiter" cannot stick.

how so?

and my theory is"earth was a moon of jupiter"

meaning earth was apart of those "minor planets" or "moons" that are now orbiting jupiter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.