• "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"

Why do all the planets orbit in the same plane?

EO 11110

CENSORSHIP KILLS
Site Supporter
Mother Lode
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
14,702
Likes
11,535
Location
clown world
#1
the expert dodges the question.....resorts to 'born that way'

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/ab...-planets-orbit-in-the-same-plane-intermediate

The orbits of the planets are coplanar because during the Solar System's formation, the planets formed out of a disk of dust which surrounded the Sun. Because that disk of dust was a disk, all in a plane, all of the planets formed in a plane as well.

Rings and disks are common in astronomy. When a cloud collapses, the conservation of angular momentum amplifies any initial tiny spin of the cloud. As the cloud spins faster and faster, it collapses into a disk, which is the maximal balance between gravitational collapse and centrifugal force created by rapid spin. The result is the coplanar planets, the thin disks of spiral galaxies, and the accretion disks around black holes.

Dave Kornreich
Dave was the founder of Ask an Astronomer. He got his PhD from Cornell in 2001 and is now an assistant professor in the Department of Physics and Physical Science at Humboldt State University in California. There he runs his own version of Ask the Astronomer. He also helps us out with the odd cosmology question.
 

Rusty Shackelford

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
6,623
Likes
5,245
Location
Northern most Southern State
#4
The ones spinning in different plans were annihilated eons ago due to collisions...at some point the different planes likely Intersect by pure chance
 

ZZZZZ

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Dec 23, 2017
Messages
3,723
Likes
7,865
Location
Northern Arizona
#5
They don't.

But they are close. Think spinning pizza dough.
Give the pizza dough another couple of billion years and the planets will be in the same plane.
.
 

TomD

It blowed up, y'all
Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
4,276
Likes
5,819
Location
Florida Panhandle
#6
More astonishing bullshit by our esteemed pretend scientists
What do you mean? I've got a limited engineer's level of understanding of the math and physics involved but don't find anything noteworthy of the basic statements.
 

JayDubya

Platinum Bling
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
5,203
Likes
6,546
#7
I don't see anything wrong with the analysis.
Look at Saturn's ring. It's basically thousands if not millions of little planetoids orbiting Saturn in basically the same plane as well.
In fact, I think it would be more astonishing if the planets were all over the place and didn't show some kind of conformity, for lack of better word.
 

newmisty

Splodey-Headed
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
26,124
Likes
37,528
Location
Qmerica
#8
It's the same way electrons orbit atomic nuclei.



We are deep inside a very large body.

If one were able to magnify an electron and take a close look perhaps one would find abundant life there too.
 

Strawboss

Home Improvement Sales Trainee...
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
5,983
Likes
10,607
#9
It's the same way electrons orbit atomic nuclei.



We are deep inside a very large body.

If one were able to magnify an electron and take a close look perhaps one would find abundant life there too.
Now THAT is a deep thought...
 

Saul Mine

Seeker
Seeker
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
386
Likes
335
#10
What do you mean? I've got a limited engineer's level of understanding of the math and physics involved but don't find anything noteworthy of the basic statements.
All attempts to analyze a system of two planets orbiting a sun based on Newton's theory of gravity, result in one of the planets being ejected from the system. There is no stable system in Newtonian gravity, but astronomers insist that is the only effect in the universe.

Proponents of the Electric Universe have no such problem, but there is no official acceptance of EU theories.
https://www.thunderbolts.info/
 

newmisty

Splodey-Headed
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
26,124
Likes
37,528
Location
Qmerica
#11
Now THAT is a deep thought...
When the human body "dies" it's simply that the flesh body made up of molecules has been discarded. The temperatures in a cremation furnace are not hot enough to destroy the atomic nuclei of the human body, otherwise there would be nuclear fission and a very large explosion with tremendous energy. The atomic nuclei of the human body still exist in the dimension invisible to our eyes after death.

Remember, the smaller the particle, the greater it's energy. As I've often said...the Heaven's are in the microcosm.
 
Last edited:

arminius

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
4,826
Likes
6,639
Location
right here right now
#13
If one were able to magnify an electron and take a close look perhaps one would find abundant life there too.
And get down to the electrons within that particular plane of existence you just magnified down to, continue down to it's basic atomic solar system model, and you would find a repeat of the bloom of that neverending circle. Energy is never destroyed, it is always transmuted, transformed...
 

Unca Walt

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 15, 2011
Messages
9,814
Likes
14,619
Location
South Floriduh
#14
Coupla things:

I dunno how he did it, (read my mind) but zzzzzz used the analogy I was going to use. Flung pizza dough is a good demo of the concept.

My bro newmisty doesn't quite have it right. Back when I was in High School (this was before fire was invented) we used the Niels Bohr model of atomic structure***

***The apparent resemblance of an atom with "planetary" electrons. This was oversimplified, but kewl enough to figure valences and so forth. Reality is that atoms would look like fuzzy balls, with electrons going all over the fargin place.

This was the result of the work of Richard Feynman IIRC. <-- Actually, I DO recall, 'cause it was a test question. :-)

In order to picture it, here is a depiction of a helium atom with two measly electrons:

The two electrons are busy, going all over the fargin place... not neatly like planets or Bohr's first brilliant layout. On toppa that, the electrons in atoms are not all the same things; some have spin "up", some have spin "down" and the quantum levels are s, p, d, f. <-- each of those types with particular orbital paths -- including dumbbell shaped orbits -- I never fully understood that... but there it is.

So... little planets are out, and one of my first science fiction stories (written in the early '50s) is now bullshit.
 

Bigjon

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
2,888
Likes
2,679
#15
All attempts to analyze a system of two planets orbiting a sun based on Newton's theory of gravity, result in one of the planets being ejected from the system. There is no stable system in Newtonian gravity, but astronomers insist that is the only effect in the universe.

Proponents of the Electric Universe have no such problem, but there is no official acceptance of EU theories.
https://www.thunderbolts.info/
Yes a govt funded misinfo site to lead you away from the real work of James McCanney.

Who was first to use the term Electric Universe.

http://www.jmccanneyscience.com/


http://www.jmccanneyscience.com/WeeklyRadioShowArchivesSubPage.HTM

Where you will learn the Universe was NOT formed in a big bang.
Red shift is a function of light passing through electric dipoles that are distributed uniformly through the electric universe.
And the solar system was not formed at one time but assembled by planetary capture of random large comets.
 
Last edited:

Bottom Feeder

Hypophthalmichthys molitrix
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
8,060
Likes
14,775
Location
Seattle
#17
It's the same way electrons orbit atomic nuclei.
I used to think that also, misty, but Walter is correct. This is the model that replaced the one I was taught in high school:

Accepted Model.jpg

Recently they (the incompetent brainless scientists) have replaced that model with this one:

New Model.jpg

Now we all know that no one really knows what it looks like, but in order to teach the newbies you need something to illustrate what you're trying to explain.

ok, I'm done
BF
 

EricTheCat

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
1,339
Likes
3,116
Location
Southern MN
#18
All attempts to analyze a system of two planets orbiting a sun based on Newton's theory of gravity, result in one of the planets being ejected from the system. There is no stable system in Newtonian gravity, but astronomers insist that is the only effect in the universe.

Proponents of the Electric Universe have no such problem, but there is no official acceptance of EU theories.
https://www.thunderbolts.info/
That is not true. I wrote my own program that uses Newtonian gravity. It can load a spreadsheet containing the distance, speed, size and mass of each planet in the solar system and it behaves in the exact way the accepted model behaves. Where is your source that Newtonian gravity would cause a planet to be ejected?
 

newmisty

Splodey-Headed
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
26,124
Likes
37,528
Location
Qmerica
#19
Coupla things:

I dunno how he did it, (read my mind) but zzzzzz used the analogy I was going to use. Flung pizza dough is a good demo of the concept.

My bro newmisty doesn't quite have it right. Back when I was in High School (this was before fire was invented) we used the Niels Bohr model of atomic structure***

***The apparent resemblance of an atom with "planetary" electrons. This was oversimplified, but kewl enough to figure valences and so forth. Reality is that atoms would look like fuzzy balls, with electrons going all over the fargin place.

This was the result of the work of Richard Feynman IIRC. <-- Actually, I DO recall, 'cause it was a test question. :-)

In order to picture it, here is a depiction of a helium atom with two measly electrons:

The two electrons are busy, going all over the fargin place... not neatly like planets or Bohr's first brilliant layout. On toppa that, the electrons in atoms are not all the same things; some have spin "up", some have spin "down" and the quantum levels are s, p, d, f. <-- each of those types with particular orbital paths -- including dumbbell shaped orbits -- I never fully understood that... but there it is.

So... little planets are out, and one of my first science fiction stories (written in the early '50s) is now bullshit.
Expand your atom to galaxy size and it's close enough to illustrate the strong similarities.
 

Unca Walt

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 15, 2011
Messages
9,814
Likes
14,619
Location
South Floriduh
#20
That is not true. I wrote my own program that uses Newtonian gravity. It can load a spreadsheet containing the distance, speed, size and mass of each planet in the solar system and it behaves in the exact way the accepted model behaves. Where is your source that Newtonian gravity would cause a planet to be ejected?
Shit.

I did not see the Saul Mine post, or I woulda been all over it also. I wonder if he meant two planets in the same exact orbit??

If Saul needs an example of exactly that (two spheres happily rotating around a larger sphere while in the same orbit) he can look at Saturn.

Saturn has two moons that do just fargin fine co-orbiting around without any problems. The clever moons are Epimetheus and Janus. <-- IIRC, Janus was so named because it sorta reprised the two-faced Grik god... Janus shares its orbit with Epiyada-yada.

I do not even register on the brilliance scale of EricTheCat (fargin genius wrote his own Newtonian gravity program!!), but I happen to have a pack-rat ability to remember the most useless trivia.

Do I get points for that? :dog:
 

EricTheCat

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
1,339
Likes
3,116
Location
Southern MN
#21
Shit.

I did not see the Saul Mine post, or I woulda been all over it also. I wonder if he meant two planets in the same exact orbit??

If Saul needs an example of exactly that (two spheres happily rotating around a larger sphere while in the same orbit) he can look at Saturn.

Saturn has two moons that do just fargin fine co-orbiting around without any problems. The clever moons are Epimetheus and Janus. <-- IIRC, Janus was so named because it sorta reprised the two-faced Grik god... Janus shares its orbit with Epiyada-yada.

I do not even register on the brilliance scale of EricTheCat (fargin genius wrote his own Newtonian gravity program!!), but I happen to have a pack-rat ability to remember the most useless trivia.

Do I get points for that? :dog:
Well thanks Unca! :beer:

We'll just have to see what he meant. Also curious what the math looks like in the alternate "theory". I could make a version of the simulator using the alternate equations and see how they compare.

I don't think I am brilliant. I just have a very strong curiosity when it comes to things I am interested in and for some reason I like putting math to good practical use. No doubt there are subject that you know much more about than I do.
 

Mujahideen

Black Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
11,231
Likes
20,588
Location
Wakanda
#22
The ones spinning in different plans were annihilated eons ago due to collisions...at some point the different planes likely Intersect by pure chance
I’ve heard this too, I’m not scientist but I would think that somewhere some outliers would exist. Like at the edge of a solar system somewhere a planet could be on another plane.
 

Bottom Feeder

Hypophthalmichthys molitrix
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
8,060
Likes
14,775
Location
Seattle
#23
I’ve heard this too, I’m not scientist but I would think that somewhere some outliers would exist. Like at the edge of a solar system somewhere a planet could be on another plane.
That would be our used-to-be-a-planet Pluto.

BF
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
9,291
Likes
10,356
Location
Instant Gratification Land
#24

GOLDBRIX

God,Donald Trump,most in GIM2 I Trust. OTHERS-meh
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
11,263
Likes
13,722
#25
They get me with this " The SUN has a companion" speak. If there was a companion I think we'd see it. After all we can see stars 10s of light years away and know the have satellites/planets orbiting them yet we can not identify a companion star which should be much closer.
We have perturbations of the outer planets yet haven't found that anomaly either.
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
9,291
Likes
10,356
Location
Instant Gratification Land
#26
This is for anyone thinking that atoms are mini solar systems.

 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
9,291
Likes
10,356
Location
Instant Gratification Land
#27
They get me with this " The SUN has a companion" speak. If there was a companion I think we'd see it. After all we can see stars 10s of light years away
are you thinking that the word companion is being used to infer that ours is a binary system? If so, it's not.
 

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
42,841
Likes
69,095
Location
Rocky Mountains
#28
Why do all the planets orbit in the same plane?

Because God has OCD.
 

Uncle

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 13, 2010
Messages
1,618
Likes
1,953
Location
SA
#29
Why not?

Golden Regards
Uncle
 

EO 11110

CENSORSHIP KILLS
Site Supporter
Mother Lode
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
14,702
Likes
11,535
Location
clown world
#30
is there some sort of force holding them on that plane? pizza has dough....what is the dough?

the tinniest of variance of any one of the planets would put them out of the club over a few thousand/few million years. knowing that, can we assume that their plane paths are EXACTLY the same....or are some of them in the process of moving out of the neighborhood?
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
9,291
Likes
10,356
Location
Instant Gratification Land
#31
the tinniest of variance of any one of the planets would put them out of the club over a few thousand/few million years. knowing that, can we assume that their plane paths are EXACTLY the same....or are some of them in the process of moving out of the neighborhood?
No, they aren't "exactly" on the same plane.

Mercury for example has an orbital inclination of 6.6 degrees. Venus orbits at 2.2, mars at 1.8 and earth at 1.6 degrees while the four giants all have an orbital inclination within 1 degree or less.
....and yes, some may eventually move out of the neighborhood. Or at least out of their current neighborhoods.
 
Last edited:

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
42,841
Likes
69,095
Location
Rocky Mountains
#32
QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter

Celebrated for his brilliantly quirky insights into the physical world, Nobel laureate Richard Feynman also possessed an extraordinary talent for explaining difficult concepts to the general public. Here Feynman provides a classic and definitive introduction to QED (namely, quantum electrodynamics), that part of quantum field theory describing the interactions of light with charged particles. Using everyday language, spatial concepts, visualizations, and his renowned "Feynman diagrams" instead of advanced mathematics, Feynman clearly and humorously communicates both the substance and spirit of QED to the layperson. A. Zee's introduction places Feynman’s book and his seminal contribution to QED in historical context and further highlights Feynman’s uniquely appealing and illuminating style.​

Screen Shot 2019-07-01 at 12.06.08 PM.png
 

Bottom Feeder

Hypophthalmichthys molitrix
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
8,060
Likes
14,775
Location
Seattle
#34
Good news!

The Gods of Science felt bad for what they did to poor Pluto: It has been reinstated as a planet.
Yeah, I heard rumors of that a while back. I didn't look into it because I was "Make up yer freakin mind fellas" — scientists and doktors, cut from the same cloth.

BF
 

EO 11110

CENSORSHIP KILLS
Site Supporter
Mother Lode
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
14,702
Likes
11,535
Location
clown world
#35
No, they aren't "exactly" on the same plane.

Mercury for example has an orbital inclination of 6.6 degrees. Venus orbits at 2.2, mars at 1.8 and earth at 1.6 degrees while the four giants all have an ornital inclination within 1 degree or less.
....and yes, some may eventually move out of the neighborhood. Or at least out of their current neighborhoods.
so that leads to the realization that the current version of this solar system is not millions of years old? or can they go on like that forever?
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
9,291
Likes
10,356
Location
Instant Gratification Land
#36
so that leads to the realization that the current version of this solar system is not millions of years old? or can they go on like that forever?
over billions of years, it's certainly possible that the current Planets are not all in their original orbits.
Also, some orbits are more stable than others.
 

Rusty Shackelford

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
6,623
Likes
5,245
Location
Northern most Southern State
#38
is there some sort of force holding them on that plane? pizza has dough....what is the dough?

the tinniest of variance of any one of the planets would put them out of the club over a few thousand/few million years. knowing that, can we assume that their plane paths are EXACTLY the same....or are some of them in the process of moving out of the neighborhood?
Centripetal force related to the massive spinning sun and its enormous gravitational pull..
 

Unca Walt

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 15, 2011
Messages
9,814
Likes
14,619
Location
South Floriduh
#39
so that leads to the realization that the current version of this solar system is not millions of years old? or can they go on like that forever?

They cannot go on forever. BUT... the way they will change is sorta like a time-lapse movie: The Sun will slowly change from the G-type it is now into an expanding red giant -- which will absorb the planets. But don't panic. Our sun is middle-aged, having been around for 4.5-5.5 billion years. It has about another 4.5-5.5 billion years to go before it runs out of fuel (hydrogen and helium).



https://www.universetoday.com/12648/will-earth-survive-when-the-sun-becomes-a-red-giant/
 

GOLDBRIX

God,Donald Trump,most in GIM2 I Trust. OTHERS-meh
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
11,263
Likes
13,722
#40
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If the current science is correct.