Science Admits Asteroid Belt Mass Too Small for Planet Break-Up

[Lee]

If a planet didn't explode here, the only other explanation is something got "cleaved" (no, they're not admitting that)--Lee:

SOURCE: http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucedorminey/2013/01/31/why-our-main-asteroid-belt-is-hardly-the-remnant-of-an-exploded-planet/

<a target="_blank" href="http://adclick.g.doubleclick.net/aclk?sa=L&ai=BPWopnx-gUaSmOOXb0AHn14CICcaJ6NMDAAAAEAEgADgAUJ6Xyff______wFYxpHgk1Rgycapi8Ck2A-CARdjYS1wdWItMzAxNjM3MDQ1NzE5NTY0N7IBDnd3dy5mb3JiZXMuY29tugEJZ2ZwX2ltYWdlyAEJ2gF8aHR0cDovL3d3dy5mb3JiZXMuY29tL3NpdGVzL2JydWNlZG9ybWluZXkvMjAxMy8wMS8zMS93aHktb3VyLW1haW4tYXN0ZXJvaWQtYmVsdC1pcy1oYXJkbHktdGhlLXJlbW5hbnQtb2YtYW4tZXhwbG9kZWQtcGxhbmV0L5gC4F3AAgLgAgDqAhc3MTc1L2ZkYy5mb3JiZXMvYXJ0aWNsZfgC9NEekAPgA5gD4AOoAwHgBAGgBh4&num=0&sig=AOD64_34Td9GApqPIDK1J0eFdOGu4OPoZw&client=ca-pub-3016370457195647&adurl=http%3A%2F%2Fad.doubleclick.net/click%3Bh%3Dv8/3ded/3/0/%2a/a%3B271496368%3B0-0%3B0%3B94508776%3B3454-728/90%3B53949706/53858706/1%3B%3B%7Eokv%3D%3Bpc%3D%5BTPAS_ID%5D%3B%3B%7Esscs%3D%3fhttp://solutionsthatmatter.van.fedex.com/save_time?cmp=BAC-1001265-1-1-952-1110000-US-US-EN-FY13BRANDADV000&site=94508776&value1=7241217"><img src="http://s0.2mdn.net/1186546/fedex_HAL_728x90.gif" width="728" height="90" border="0" alt="Advertisement" galleryimg="no"></a>

Bruce Dorminey, Contributor

I cover over-the-horizon technology, aerospace and astronomy.

1/31/2013 @ 7:35PM |2,180 views

Main Asteroid Belt No Remnant Of Exploded Planet

comments, called-out

Comment Now

Follow Comments Following Comments Unfollow Comments

Artist's concept of a narrow asteroid belt potentially around another sunlike star. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

For years now, there have been claims from the astronomical fringes that our solar system’s Main Asteroid Belt contains the destroyed, or even “exploded,” remains of one or more full-scale planets.

Just what could have plausibly caused such wholesale destruction — down to meter-sized rocky objects — is open for debate.

Internet forums are full of ideas — invoking everything from “matter-anti-matter” explosions to war-mongering “space aliens.”

If that’s not enough, there have even been assertions that Mars itself is actually such an exploded planet’s scattered former moon.

It’s the kind of speculative tidbit that makes for great late night radio, but it’s complete anathema to mainstream planetary science.

Millions of rocky objects still inhabit the Main Belt ranging in size from the newly reclassified dwarf planet Ceres, which at 1000 kilometers in diameter remains the Belt’s largest known body, down to scales wholly undetectable with present technology. But even if all the Main Belt’s material were swept up to make a single body, there still wouldn’t be enough to make a full-sized terrestrial mass planet.

Thus, as Nick Moskovitz, a planetary scientist at M.I.T. and an expert on the Main Asteroid Belt, points out, the belt could have never hosted a planet large enough to claim Mars as a satellite.

Even assuming at the time of its formation that the belt was 100 times more massive than today, he says, its total mass would have been only about half that of Mars. So, the “host planet” would actually have to be smaller than its satellite.

“There’s a not a single piece of concrete evidence that would suggest that there ever was a full-sized planet in the asteroid belt,” said Moskovitz. “In the region of the Main Belt, it’s dynamically impossible in the presence of Jupiter’s gravitational influence for small bodies to collide and stick together to form a full-sized planet.”

In truth, the mass of the Main Belt — which extends just past the orbit of Mars to about three and a half times the distance from the Earth to the Sun — has not changed much over the 4.5 billion year life of the solar system.

Moskovitz says the belt that we see today is the result of a population of bodies that have spent the subsequent 4.5 billion years interacting and colliding with one another.

Although downward-looking diagrams of the Main Asteroid Belt make it look incredibly dense, the region has significant gaps, clumps and clusters. And if someone were actually on a spacecraft traveling through the region, chances are the next nearest slab of rock would be at least a few hundred thousand kilometers away.

Early on, Moskovitz says the entire solar system probably resembled one giant asteroid belt. Then as the planets formed, they cleared out the material in their vicinity.

Image of the main asteroid belt between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

However, because there’s no planet in the asteroid belt, it remains a relic dumping ground of sorts for material from all over the solar system.

But it is arguably best suited as an asteroidal Rosetta Stone in interpreting our own solar system’s evolutionary twists and turns.

Even though the Main Belt represents only a small fraction of the total extent of our solar system, as Moskovitz points out, the belt is replete with a huge diversity of geologic histories. It also continues to serve as a point of theoretical comparison with the internal dynamics of the many recently-discovered extra-solar planetary systems.

MIT Planetary Scientist Nick Moskovitz. Image courtesy of Moskovitz

Partly as a result, many planetary theorists now think that our four outer gas giant planets — Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune — actually formed much closer together and farther in than their current orbits would indicate.

But cataclysmic gravitational interactions between Jupiter and Saturn caused these behemoths to migrate out to their present orbits.

“These rearrangements caused lots of Main Belt chaos,” said Moskovitz. “Within its first few hundred million years, the whole architecture of the solar system changed dramatically.”

[wayne james]

wonder how big the check was he got to put that out??

“There’s a not a single piece of concrete evidence that would suggest that there ever was a full-sized planet in the asteroid belt,” said Moskovitz. “In the region of the Main Belt, it’s dynamically impossible in the presence of Jupiter’s gravitational influence for small bodies to collide and stick together to form a full-sized planet.”

REALLY!! wow thats like saying its dynamically impossible for the sun to create planets cus it orbits another star.....infact hes just basically said no stars in the universe can form planets.

lets consider Jupiter has 67 orbiting satellites (hes telling me non of them formed around jupiter), lets also consider that Ganymede is bigger than mercury (A moon bigger than a planet), yep and that's how he justified last years £60,000 grant lol

in less than 12 months Jupiters magnetic field doubled in strength, how the hell can he predict  the changes in Jupiter to speculate?

until we have the belt mapped properly and have samples from not one but about 100 rocks in that belt, he has no grounds to speculate  what is or what is not possible.

why is it, us out of mainline have to prove everything  we theories, from its math to every detail and if one thing is out of place we get chopped down like a rotten tree, BUT, BUT these people seem to pull things out of thin air and mainline support them by posting total rubbish like that.

kind regards

wayne

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dark Star Planet X" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to dark-star-plane...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to dark-star...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/dark-star-planet-x?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

[andy3751]

I agree, Wayne.  Like with the extra-solar planet discoveries where impossible orbits and planetary masses were found to be possible after all.

Sent from Samsung tablet

[wayne james]

i discovered a new form of matter for these people to work on, its called don't-matter, apparently don't matter reacts with morons...sounds like this guys line of work lol 

On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 2:03 PM, Alan Cornette <alanco...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hey Wayne, all they have to do is add the words 'black' and 'dark' to their theories, ;-)  Al C.

[Lee]

I guess he's still thinking that there's "exotic material," instead of rocks that more resemble Earth/Tiamat in the belt out there--Lee:

"...because there’s no planet in the asteroid belt, it remains a relic dumping ground of sorts for material from all over the solar system."

-----Original Message-----
From: andy3751
Sent: May 25, 2013 8:02 AM
To: semaj...@googlemail.com, zle...@peoplepc.com, dark-star...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Science Admits Asteroid Belt Mass Too Small for Planet Break-Up

I agree, Wayne.  Like with the extra-solar planet discoveries where impossible orbits and planetary masses were found to be possible after all.

Sent from Samsung tablet

[Alan Cornette]

"Don't matter" I like that, Wayne. Gonna' mark that down to use later. Al C.

[Barry Warmkessel]

They are right, the "planet" that blew up was a very tiny one.

It was the size of some of the smaller satellites of Saturn.  The rings of Saturn were also formed by an exploded satellite.

Both had very tiny Primordial Black Holes at their nucleus.

this tiny planet was formed when the expanding universe reached a size that the laws that governed it change from those governing Quantum to Classical mechanics.

http://www.yaridanjo.warmkessel.com/sunsplan.html#2

  TABLE 8-1CASTING OF THE OUTER PLANETSCASTING ENDS

Vulcan's Planets Casting order		Solar Planets Casting order
Planet/Orbit (rAU)		Planet/Orbit (rAU)
1 st cast- (Undiscovered?)		Occupied (Vulcan)*
0.3 X 2exp.(10.1764) = 347.2 AU		0.3 X 2 exp.(10) = 307.2
		Occupied (Vulcan)*
		0.3 X 2 exp.(9.6472) = 240.5
2 nd cast- (Pluto)		Occupied (Vulcan)*
0.3 X 2exp.(9.1764) = 173.6 AU		0.3 X 2 exp.(9) = 153.6
		3 rd cast-Septimus-A** Mid.
		0.3 X 2 exp.(8.6472) = 120 AU
4 th cast- (1996TL66)		Occupied Pluto*
0.3 X 2exp.8.1764 = 86.84 AU		0.3 X 2 exp.(8.0) = 76.8 AU
5 th cast- (Detonated?)		Occupied (Pluto)*
0.3 X 2exp.(7.1764) = 43.4 AU		0.3 X 2 exp.(7) = 38.4 AU
		6 th cast-Neptune/Triton** Mid.
		0.3 X 2 exp.(6.6472) = 30.0
7 th cast- (Detonated?)		8 th cast- Uranus
0.3 X 2exp.(6.1764) = 21.7 AU		0.3 X 2exp.(6) = 19.2 AU
9 th cast- (Detonated?)		10 th cast- Saturn
0.3 X 2exp.(5.1764) = 10.85 AU		0.3 X 2exp.(5) = 9.6 AU
	PERTURBATION BY CHANGE FROM QUANTUM TO CLASSICAL MECHANICS
11 th cast-Planet x-1 Septimus-B		12 th cast-Jupiter
0.3 X 2 exp.(4.1764) = 5.4 AU		0.4 + 0.3 X 2exp.(4) = 5.2 AU
13 th cast-Planet x-2 (Detonated?)		14 th cast (Detonated) - Asteroids
0.4 + 0.3 X 2exp.(3.1764) = 3.1 AU		0.4 + 0.3 X 2exp.(3) = 2.8 AU
15 th cast-Planet x-3 (Detonated?)		16 th cast-Mars
0.4 + 0.3 X 2exp.(2.1764) = 1.8 AU		0.4 + 0.3 X 2exp.(2) = 1.6 AU
	PERTURBATION FADES AWAY
17 th cast-Planet x-4 (Detonated?)		18 th cast- Earth/Moon** Mid.
0.3 X 2exp.(1.1764) = 0.7 AU		0.3 X 2exp.(1.6472) = 0.94 AU
19 th cast-Planet x-4 (Detonated?)		20 th cast- Venus
0.3 X 2exp.(0.1764) = 0.34 AU		0.3 X 2exp.(1) = 0.6 AU
21 th cast-Planet x-4 (Detonated?)		22 th cast- Mercury
0.3 X 2exp.(0.1764 - 1.0000) = 0.17 AU		0.3 X 2exp.(0) = 0.3 AU

* Vulcan crosses the ecliptic at 182 and 285 AU and has a Perigee/Apogee of 134/454 AU respectively. Thus it occupies these orbital position. Likewise, Pluto occupies two orbital positions because its orbit now varies from about 30 AU to 50 AU
** occupied (by Vulcan or Pluto) so potential casting is forbidden (i.e. no planet is formed). The planet casting is delayed until an acceptable mid-orbit casting position is reached, then it is cast

---

Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 09:28:47 -0400
From: zle...@peoplepc.com
To: andy...@hotmail.com; semaj...@googlemail.com; dark-star...@googlegroups.com

[Amy Evans]

But, if it was only say 1/4th or less of a planet ... as in The Lost Book of Enki ... Tiamat ... then it might come close

 

Sincerely,
Amy & Bob Evans

 

Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 09:28:47 -0400From: zle...@peoplepc.comTo: andy...@hotmail.com; semaj...@googlemail.com; dark-star...@googlegroups.comSubject: Re: Science Admits Asteroid Belt Mass Too Small for Planet Break-UpI guess he's still thinking that there's "exotic material," instead of rocks that more resemble Earth/Tiamat in the belt out there--Lee: "...because there’s no planet in the asteroid belt, it remains a relic dumping ground of sorts for material from all over the solar system."

-----Original Message-----
From: andy3751
Sent: May 25, 2013 8:02 AM
To: semaj...@googlemail.com, zle...@peoplepc.com, dark-star...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Science Admits Asteroid Belt Mass Too Small for Planet Break-Up

I agree, Wayne.  Like with the extra-solar planet discoveries where impossible orbits and planetary masses were found to be possible after all.

Sent from Samsung tablet

wayne james <semaj...@googlemail.com> wrote:

wonder how big the check was he got to put that out??

“There’s a not a single piece of concrete evidence that would suggest that there ever was a full-sized planet in the asteroid belt,” said Moskovitz. “In the region of the Main Belt, it’s dynamically impossible in the presence of Jupiter’s gravitational influence for small bodies to collide and stick together to form a full-sized planet.”

REALLY!! wow thats like saying its dynamically impossible for the sun to create planets cus it orbits another star.....infact hes just basically said no stars in the universe can form planets.

lets consider Jupiter has 67 orbiting satellites (hes telling me non of them formed around jupiter), lets also consider that Ganymede is bigger than mercury (A moon bigger than a planet), yep and that's how he justified last years £60,000 grant lol

in less than 12 months Jupiters magnetic field doubled in strength, how the hell can he predict  the changes in Jupiter to speculate?

until we have the belt mapped properly and have samples from not one but about 100 rocks in that belt, he has no grounds to speculate  what is or what is not possible.

why is it, us out of mainline have to prove everything  we theories, from its math to every detail and if one thing is out of place we get chopped down like a rotten tree, BUT, BUT these people seem to pull things out of thin air and mainline support them by posting total rubbish like that.

kind regards

wayne

On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 3:29 AM, Lee <zle...@peoplepc.com> wrote:

If a planet didn't explode here, the only other explanation is something got "cleaved" (no, they're not admitting that)--Lee:

SOURCE: http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucedorminey/2013/01/31/why-our-main-asteroid-belt-is-hardly-the-remnant-of-an-exploded-planet/

<a target="_blank" href="http://adclick.g.doubleclick.net/aclk?sa=L&ai=BPWopnx-gUaSmOOXb0AHn14CICcaJ6NMDAAAAEAEgADgAUJ6Xyff______wFYxpHgk1Rgycapi8Ck2A-CARdjYS1wdWItMzAxNjM3MDQ1NzE5NTY0N7IBDnd3dy5mb3JiZXMuY29tugEJZ2ZwX2ltYWdlyAEJ2gF8aHR0cDovL3d3dy5mb3JiZXMuY29tL3NpdGVzL2JydWNlZG9ybWluZXkvMjAxMy8wMS8zMS93aHktb3VyLW1haW4tYXN0ZXJvaWQtYmVsdC1pcy1oYXJkbHktdGhlLXJlbW5hbnQtb2YtYW4tZXhwbG9kZWQtcGxhbmV0L5gC4F3AAgLgAgDqAhc3MTc1L2ZkYy5mb3JiZXMvYXJ0aWNsZfgC9NEekAPgA5gD4AOoAwHgBAGgBh4&num=0&sig=AOD64_34Td9GApqPIDK1J0eFdOGu4OPoZw&client=ca-pub-3016370457195647&adurl=http://ad.doubleclick.net/click%3bh%3Dv8/3ded/3/0/%2a/a%3b271496368%3b0-0%3b0%3b94508776%3b3454-728/90%3b53949706/53858706/1%3b%3b~okv%3D%3bpc%3D%5bTPAS_ID%5d%3b%3b~sscs%3D?http://solutionsthatmatter.van.fedex.com/save_time?cmp=BAC-1001265-1-1-952-1110000-US-US-EN-FY13BRANDADV000&site=94508776&value1=7241217"><img src="http://s0.2mdn.net/1186546/fedex_HAL_728x90.gif" width="728" height="90" border="0" alt="Advertisement" galleryimg="no"></a>

Bruce Dorminey, Contributor I cover over-the-horizon technology, aerospace and astronomy.

1/31/2013 @ 7:35PM |2,180 views

Main Asteroid Belt No Remnant Of Exploded Planet

comments, called-out

Comment Now

Follow Comments Following Comments Unfollow Comments

Artist's concept of a narrow asteroid belt potentially around another sunlike star. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

For years now, there have been claims from the astronomical fringes that our solar system’s Main Asteroid Belt contains the destroyed, or even “exploded,” remains of one or more full-scale planets. Just what could have plausibly caused such wholesale destruction — down to meter-sized rocky objects — is open for debate.Internet forums are full of ideas — invoking everything from “matter-anti-matter” explosions to war-mongering “space aliens.” If that’s not enough, there have even been assertions that Mars itself is actually such an exploded planet’s scattered former moon.It’s the kind of speculative tidbit that makes for great late night radio, but it’s complete anathema to mainstream planetary science. Millions of rocky objects still inhabit the Main Belt ranging in size from the newly reclassified dwarf planet Ceres, which at 1000 kilometers in diameter remains the Belt’s largest known body, down to scales wholly undetectable with present technology. But even if all the Main Belt’s material were swept up to make a single body, there still wouldn’t be enough to make a full-sized terrestrial mass planet. Thus, as Nick Moskovitz, a planetary scientist at M.I.T. and an expert on the Main Asteroid Belt, points out, the belt could have never hosted a planet large enough to claim Mars as a satellite. Even assuming at the time of its formation that the belt was 100 times more massive than today, he says, its total mass would have been only about half that of Mars. So, the “host planet” would actually have to be smaller than its satellite. “There’s a not a single piece of concrete evidence that would suggest that there ever was a full-sized planet in the asteroid belt,” said Moskovitz. “In the region of the Main Belt, it’s dynamically impossible in the presence of Jupiter’s gravitational influence for small bodies to collide and stick together to form a full-sized planet.” In truth, the mass of the Main Belt — which extends just past the orbit of Mars to about three and a half times the distance from the Earth to the Sun — has not changed much over the 4.5 billion year life of the solar system. Moskovitz says the belt that we see today is the result of a population of bodies that have spent the subsequent 4.5 billion years interacting and colliding with one another.Although downward-looking diagrams of the Main Asteroid Belt make it look incredibly dense, the region has significant gaps, clumps and clusters. And if someone were actually on a spacecraft traveling through the region, chances are the next nearest slab of rock would be at least a few hundred thousand kilometers away. Early on, Moskovitz says the entire solar system probably resembled one giant asteroid belt. Then as the planets formed, they cleared out the material in their vicinity.

Image of the main asteroid belt between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

However, because there’s no planet in the asteroid belt, it remains a relic dumping ground of sorts for material from all over the solar system. But it is arguably best suited as an asteroidal Rosetta Stone in interpreting our own solar system’s evolutionary twists and turns.Even though the Main Belt represents only a small fraction of the total extent of our solar system, as Moskovitz points out, the belt is replete with a huge diversity of geologic histories. It also continues to serve as a point of theoretical comparison with the internal dynamics of the many recently-discovered extra-solar planetary systems.

MIT Planetary Scientist Nick Moskovitz. Image courtesy of Moskovitz

Partly as a result, many planetary theorists now think that our four outer gas giant planets — Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune — actually formed much closer together and farther in than their current orbits would indicate. But cataclysmic gravitational interactions between Jupiter and Saturn caused these behemoths to migrate out to their present orbits.“These rearrangements caused lots of Main Belt chaos,” said Moskovitz. “Within its first few hundred million years, the whole architecture of the solar system changed dramatically.”

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dark Star Planet X" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to mailto:dark-star-planet-x%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to dark-star...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/dark-star-planet-x?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dark Star Planet X" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to dark-star-plane...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to dark-star...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/dark-star-planet-x?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dark Star Planet X" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to dark-star-plane...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to dark-star...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/dark-star-planet-x?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dark Star Planet X" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to dark-star-plane...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to dark-star...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/dark-star-planet-x?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.    

[Barry Warmkessel]

We originally turned to get alien data on their solar system because so little was and still is known about these solar systems.

The Iargans from the 61 Cygni star system are a good case in point.

In this case, our astronomer spotted the zodiacal light towards their Sun as their spacecrafts were leaving their planet (which also showed their satellites and rings). See the figure below.  Their Sun is just breaking horizon and we got a color photo from the guy that published the book. The zodiacal light is around their Sun which is just above where the bottom of the planetary ring intersects the planet.

http://rune.galactic.to/bilde11.jpg

Here is where we published our calculations and results.

http://www.yaridanjo.warmkessel.com/planets.html

---

TABLE 10-1
THREE OTHER SOLAR SYSTEMS*

PLANET DESIGNATOR	ALPHA CENTAURI ORBIT - MASS# (AU-Earth Mass)	26 DRACONIS ORBIT - MASS# (AU-Earth Mass	61 CYGNI ORBIT - MASS# (AU-Earth Mass)
a	12620 - 1372**	9270 - 1140**	1595 - 412**
	(Proxima Centauri) 5% - 11% S. Mass	(26 Draconis C) 4% - 9% S. Mass	1.5% - 3.2% S. Mass
b	3155 - 616** 2.2% - 4.9% S. Mass	3116 - 660** 2.3% - 5.2% S. Mass	399 - 248
c	2103 - 408** 1.5% - 3.3% S. Mass	2318 - 560** 2% - 3.5% S. Mass	9.6 - 15
d	788 - 312	779 - 332	8.2 - 10.4
e	525 - 232	579 - 280	2.4 - 1520
f	197 - 164	195 - 164	2.1 - 137
g	131? - ?	145 - 140	0.6 - 0.12
h	1.17 - 2220	1.22 - 206	0.53 - Asteroids
i	0.78 - 206	0.91 - 2034	0.15 - 0.62
j	0.29 - 0.23	0.30 - Asteroids
k	0.20 - Asteroids	0.23 - 0.22

---

* These are the planets cast from the principal (larger) A star of these three star systems. Larger planets are generally formed when stars, larger than Vulcan, supply the casting forces. All masses are in Earth Masses unless otherwise designated. Parameters for the planets of the B stars are generally more difficult to estimate.

TABLE 10-2 - CONTINUED
PLANETARY SATELLITES ORBITING
SELECTED PLANETS IN THE 61 CYGNI STAR SYSTEM

* No Reliable Estimate

Satellite	System/Planet	Orbit* (AU) - Mass (Earth)#
	Sun/Jupiter	5.2 - 381
J-1		0.0098 - 0.0216
J-2		0.0062 - 0.0297
J-3		0.0039 - 0.0096
J-4		0.0025 - 0.0178
	61 Cygni A/Planet e	2.4 - 1520
e-1		0.050 - 0.26
e-2		0.036 - 0.36
e-3		0.025 - 0.12
e-4		0.018 - 0.21
	61 Cygni A/Planet f	2.1 - 137
f-1		0.019 - 0.20
f-2		0.014 - rings
f-3		0.010 - 0.004
f-4		0.007 - rings?

---

# The masses of the non solar satellites and planets shown in this Table 10- 2 are the same values as is shown in ASTRO-METRICS Table 10-2 except that they have been multiplied by 5.65 (since transition planets are involved). This change is based on the new parameters now believed to define Vulcan - the Sun's binary Companion. See the Summary section's reference. ¹.

---

Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 09:28:47 -0400
From: zle...@peoplepc.com

To: andy...@hotmail.com; semaj...@googlemail.com; dark-star...@googlegroups.com

[Amy Evans]

Maybe this will help ... check attached images

 

Sincerely,
Amy & Bob Evans

 

From: Barry Warmkessel <yari...@hotmail.com>
To: "zle...@peoplepc.com" <zle...@peoplepc.com>; Dark Star <dark-star...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 12:06 PM
Subject: RE: Science Admits Asteroid Belt Mass Too Small for Planet Break-Up

We originally turned to get alien data on their solar system because so little was and still is known about these solar systems.

The Iargans from the 61 Cygni star system are a good case in point.

In this case, our astronomer spotted the zodiacal light towards their Sun as their spacecrafts were leaving their planet (which also showed their satellites and rings). See the figure below.  Their Sun is just breaking horizon and we got a color photo from the guy that published the book. The zodiacal light is around their Sun which is just above where the bottom of the planetary ring intersects the planet.

http://rune.galactic.to/bilde11.jpg

Here is where we published our calculations and results.

http://www.yaridanjo.warmkessel.com/planets.html

# The masses of the non solar satellites and planets shown in this Table 10- 2 are the same values as is shown in ASTRO-METRICS Table 10-2 except that they have been multiplied by 5.65 (since transition planets are involved). This change is based on the new parameters now believed to define Vulcan - the Sun's binary Companion. See the Summary section's reference. ¹.

Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 09:28:47 -0400From: zle...@peoplepc.comTo: andy...@hotmail.com; semaj...@googlemail.com; dark-star...@googlegroups.comSubject: Re: Science Admits Asteroid Belt Mass Too Small for Planet Break-UpI guess he's still thinking that there's "exotic material," instead of rocks that more resemble Earth/Tiamat in the belt out there--Lee: "...because there’s no planet in the asteroid belt, it remains a relic dumping ground of sorts for material from all over the solar system."

-----Original Message-----
From: andy3751
Sent: May 25, 2013 8:02 AM
To: semaj...@googlemail.com, zle...@peoplepc.com, dark-star...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Science Admits Asteroid Belt Mass Too Small for Planet Break-Up

I agree, Wayne.  Like with the extra-solar planet discoveries where impossible orbits and planetary masses were found to be possible after all.

Sent from Samsung tablet

wayne james <semaj...@googlemail.com> wrote:

wonder how big the check was he got to put that out??

“There’s a not a single piece of concrete evidence that would suggest that there ever was a full-sized planet in the asteroid belt,” said Moskovitz. “In the region of the Main Belt, it’s dynamically impossible in the presence of Jupiter’s gravitational influence for small bodies to collide and stick together to form a full-sized planet.”

REALLY!! wow thats like saying its dynamically impossible for the sun to create planets cus it orbits another star.....infact hes just basically said no stars in the universe can form planets.

lets consider Jupiter has 67 orbiting satellites (hes telling me non of them formed around jupiter), lets also consider that Ganymede is bigger than mercury (A moon bigger than a planet), yep and that's how he justified last years £60,000 grant lol

in less than 12 months Jupiters magnetic field doubled in strength, how the hell can he predict  the changes in Jupiter to speculate?

until we have the belt mapped properly and have samples from not one but about 100 rocks in that belt, he has no grounds to speculate  what is or what is not possible.

why is it, us out of mainline have to prove everything  we theories, from its math to every detail and if one thing is out of place we get chopped down like a rotten tree, BUT, BUT these people seem to pull things out of thin air and mainline support them by posting total rubbish like that.

kind regards

wayne

On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 3:29 AM, Lee <zle...@peoplepc.com> wrote:

If a planet didn't explode here, the only other explanation is something got "cleaved" (no, they're not admitting that)--Lee:

SOURCE: http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucedorminey/2013/01/31/why-our-main-asteroid-belt-is-hardly-the-remnant-of-an-exploded-planet/

<a target="_blank" href="http://adclick.g.doubleclick.net/aclk?sa=L&ai=BPWopnx-gUaSmOOXb0AHn14CICcaJ6NMDAAAAEAEgADgAUJ6Xyff______wFYxpHgk1Rgycapi8Ck2A-CARdjYS1wdWItMzAxNjM3MDQ1NzE5NTY0N7IBDnd3dy5mb3JiZXMuY29tugEJZ2ZwX2ltYWdlyAEJ2gF8aHR0cDovL3d3dy5mb3JiZXMuY29tL3NpdGVzL2JydWNlZG9ybWluZXkvMjAxMy8wMS8zMS93aHktb3VyLW1haW4tYXN0ZXJvaWQtYmVsdC1pcy1oYXJkbHktdGhlLXJlbW5hbnQtb2YtYW4tZXhwbG9kZWQtcGxhbmV0L5gC4F3AAgLgAgDqAhc3MTc1L2ZkYy5mb3JiZXMvYXJ0aWNsZfgC9NEekAPgA5gD4AOoAwHgBAGgBh4&num=0&sig=AOD64_34Td9GApqPIDK1J0eFdOGu4OPoZw&client=ca-pub-3016370457195647&adurl=http://ad.doubleclick.net/click%3bh%3Dv8/3ded/3/0/%2a/a%3b271496368%3b0-0%3b0%3b94508776%3b3454-728/90%3b53949706/53858706/1%3b%3b~okv%3D%3bpc%3D%5bTPAS_ID%5d%3b%3b~sscs%3D?http://solutionsthatmatter.van.fedex.com/save_time?cmp=BAC-1001265-1-1-952-1110000-US-US-EN-FY13BRANDADV000&site=94508776&value1=7241217"><img src="http://s0.2mdn.net/1186546/fedex_HAL_728x90.gif" width="728" height="90" border="0" alt="Advertisement" galleryimg="no"></a>

Bruce Dorminey, Contributor I cover over-the-horizon technology, aerospace and astronomy.

1/31/2013 @ 7:35PM |2,180 views

Main Asteroid Belt No Remnant Of Exploded Planet

comments, called-out

Comment Now

Follow Comments Following Comments Unfollow Comments

Artist's concept of a narrow asteroid belt potentially around another sunlike star. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

For years now, there have been claims from the astronomical fringes that our solar system’s Main Asteroid Belt contains the destroyed, or even “exploded,” remains of one or more full-scale planets. Just what could have plausibly caused such wholesale destruction — down to meter-sized rocky objects — is open for debate.Internet forums are full of ideas — invoking everything from “matter-anti-matter” explosions to war-mongering “space aliens.” If that’s not enough, there have even been assertions that Mars itself is actually such an exploded planet’s scattered former moon.It’s the kind of speculative tidbit that makes for great late night radio, but it’s complete anathema to mainstream planetary science. Millions of rocky objects still inhabit the Main Belt ranging in size from the newly reclassified dwarf planet Ceres, which at 1000 kilometers in diameter remains the Belt’s largest known body, down to scales wholly undetectable with present technology. But even if all the Main Belt’s material were swept up to make a single body, there still wouldn’t be enough to make a full-sized terrestrial mass planet. Thus, as Nick Moskovitz, a planetary scientist at M.I.T. and an expert on the Main Asteroid Belt, points out, the belt could have never hosted a planet large enough to claim Mars as a satellite. Even assuming at the time of its formation that the belt was 100 times more massive than today, he says, its total mass would have been only about half that of Mars. So, the “host planet” would actually have to be smaller than its satellite. “There’s a not a single piece of concrete evidence that would suggest that there ever was a full-sized planet in the asteroid belt,” said Moskovitz. “In the region of the Main Belt, it’s dynamically impossible in the presence of Jupiter’s gravitational influence for small bodies to collide and stick together to form a full-sized planet.” In truth, the mass of the Main Belt — which extends just past the orbit of Mars to about three and a half times the distance from the Earth to the Sun — has not changed much over the 4.5 billion year life of the solar system. Moskovitz says the belt that we see today is the result of a population of bodies that have spent the subsequent 4.5 billion years interacting and colliding with one another.Although downward-looking diagrams of the Main Asteroid Belt make it look incredibly dense, the region has significant gaps, clumps and clusters. And if someone were actually on a spacecraft traveling through the region, chances are the next nearest slab of rock would be at least a few hundred thousand kilometers away. Early on, Moskovitz says the entire solar system probably resembled one giant asteroid belt. Then as the planets formed, they cleared out the material in their vicinity.

Image of the main asteroid belt between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

However, because there’s no planet in the asteroid belt, it remains a relic dumping ground of sorts for material from all over the solar system. But it is arguably best suited as an asteroidal Rosetta Stone in interpreting our own solar system’s evolutionary twists and turns.Even though the Main Belt represents only a small fraction of the total extent of our solar system, as Moskovitz points out, the belt is replete with a huge diversity of geologic histories. It also continues to serve as a point of theoretical comparison with the internal dynamics of the many recently-discovered extra-solar planetary systems.

MIT Planetary Scientist Nick Moskovitz. Image courtesy of Moskovitz

Partly as a result, many planetary theorists now think that our four outer gas giant planets — Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune — actually formed much closer together and farther in than their current orbits would indicate. But cataclysmic gravitational interactions between Jupiter and Saturn caused these behemoths to migrate out to their present orbits.“These rearrangements caused lots of Main Belt chaos,” said Moskovitz. “Within its first few hundred million years, the whole architecture of the solar system changed dramatically.”

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dark Star Planet X" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to mailto:dark-star-planet-x%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to dark-star...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/dark-star-planet-x?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dark Star Planet X" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to dark-star-plane...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to dark-star...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/dark-star-planet-x?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dark Star Planet X" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to dark-star-plane...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to dark-star...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/dark-star-planet-x?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dark Star Planet X" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to dark-star-plane...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to dark-star...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/dark-star-planet-x?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.    

[Lee]

It's less than 1/3 of the moon--Lee

-----Original Message-----
From: Amy Evans
Sent: May 25, 2013 3:04 PM
To: "yari...@hotmail.com" , "dark-star...@googlegroups.com"
Subject: Re: Science Admits Asteroid Belt Mass Too Small for Planet Break-Up

But, if it was only say 1/4th or less of a planet ... as in The Lost Book of Enki ... Tiamat ... then it might come close

 

Sincerely,
Amy & Bob Evans

 

From: Barry Warmkessel <yari...@hotmail.com>
To: "zle...@peoplepc.com" <zle...@peoplepc.com>; Dark Star <dark-star...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 11:52 AM
Subject: RE: Science Admits Asteroid Belt Mass Too Small for Planet Break-Up

[Barry Warmkessel]

I think it was around 1/200 mars size.

It's late for me now, so this is just an estimate that I remember from when I looked at this issue.

Also, Van Flandern looked into it and found that some of the fragments formed comets that come back to where the explosion took place, but that is his work, not mine.

The first source I heard of this exploding planet idea was from an alien contact.

Sent from my iPad

[wayne james]

barry the mini black holes aren't what you think mate, there energy vortices at points of low resistance, like 2 tornado's placed back to back, they force energy to balance giving a ZPE at its core, this is what i mean when i say Hawkins is close but he missed by blowing up a planet when thats not likely to happen because evidence is on the contrary, it was a nice try at the time though. 

barry i did some on this at uni, force F an explosion traveling in directions x,y  if the force of the blast exceeds the total mass within x.y then it simply put isn't possible, the force to explode a body of mass under gravity is multiplied greatly with every fraction of charge/gravity. for instance if body A requires 500 tons of TNT to split it then under a gravity of 2 it will need 1000 tons of TNT to gain the same effect, i agree a planet has enough energy to make a fair sized bomb, problem is the energy of a planet exploding would well, lets just say most of it would be orbiting Alpha Centauri now and what would be left at the flash point is nothing more than carbon,

p.s while we are on carbon i think this will be good time to answer one of lee's questions earlier this year, note the carbon-14 increase in the atmosphere since the sun been acting differently, carbon 14 is produced in nuclear fission, we are seeing a rise in activity not just on the surface but inside too the sun is processing the new material and not letting it build up on the surface too much as predicted :) also look out for hydrogen3 (tritium) increases, this im expecting, samples should be taken, if im right there is a special little metal floating about  out there, stronger than anything we know and with high elasticity when electrified.

[Lee]

Actually, Science Daily says its mass is only 4% of the moon--Lee:  http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/a/asteroid_belt.htm

[Barry Warmkessel]

Thanks for the link.

Mars is about 0.1 Earth masses, so then my 1/200 mars mass would be about 1/2000 earth masses or 5/10000 earth masses.

The Moon is about 1/100 Earth masses (actually a little bigger), and 4% would be 4/10000 Earth masses.

Both are about the same.

---

Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 08:51:59 -0400
From: zle...@peoplepc.com
To: yari...@hotmail.com; dark-star...@googlegroups.com

[Barry Warmkessel]

Hamking says these primordial black holes explode after billions of years ( Steven Hawking; A BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME; pp. 88, 91, 95, 97, 108 and Chapters 7 and 14.).  

Ironically, Hawking has found that these small black holes are not black at all . The laws of thermodynamics (as derived through quantum mechanics) dictate that they radiate. The smaller they are, the more they glow. Those with masses on the order of a thousand million tons will radiate power of about ten thousand megawatts for the expected life of the universe. Their mass is diminished by this radiation. Smaller ones are believed to have already exhausted their mass through radiation and already exploded or detonated. The nominal lifetime of these small primordial black holes is only a function of their mass and this function is as follows.²

T(years) = (2.72 X 10^-24 years/kilogram³) X Mass³

The longer they last, the bigger the bang. They make a plasma at the Earth's core.

They are catching up with me, my research on this matter is at least 15 years old. So I may be out of date.

• Earth's core far hotter than thought - 26 April 2013 
  New measurements suggest the Earth's inner core is far hotter than prior experiments suggested, putting it at 6,000C - as hot as the Sun's surface.
• HYPOTHESIS OF A DAEMON KERNEL OF THE EARTH
  2 Nov 2001 by E.M. Drobyshevski The main ideas of the work were presented at the International Conference "AstroKazan--2001" (24-28 September, 2001, Kazan, Russia) The paper considers the fate of the electrically charged (Ze~10e) Planckian elementary black holes - daemons - making up the dark matter (DM) of the Galactic disk, which, as follows from our measurements, were trapped by the Earth during 4.5 Gyr in an amount of ~10²⁴. Due to their huge mass (~2x10^(-8)kg), these particles settle down to the Earth's center to form a kernel. Assuming the excess flux of 10-20 TW over the heat flux level produced by known sources, which is quoted by many researchers, to be due to the energy liberated in the outer kernel layers in daemon-stimulated proton decay of iron nuclei, we have come to the conclusion that the Earth's kernel is presently measured in few fractions of meter in size. The observed mantle flux of 3He (and the limiting 3He/4He ~ 10^(-4) ratio itself) can be provided if at least one 3He(or 3T) nucleus is emitted in a daemon-stimulated decay of ~100-1000 Fe nuclei. This could remove actually the only objection to the hot origin of the Earth and to its original melting. The high energy liberation at the center of the Earth drives two-phase two-dimensional convection in its inner core (IC), with rolls oriented along the rotation axis. This provides an explanation for the numerous features in the IC structure revealed in the recent years. The energy release in the kernel grows continuously as the number of daemons in it increases. Therefore the global tectonic activity, which had died out after the initial differentiation and cooling off of the Earth was reanimated ~2 Gyr ago by the rearrangement and enhancement of convection in the mantle as a result of the increasing outward energy flow. It is pointed out that as the kernel continues to grow, the tectonic activity will become intensified rather than die out, as this was believed before. They are catching up!
• EARTH'S NEW CENTER MAY BE THE SEED OF OUR PLANET'S FORMATION Or 
  360 MILE DIAMETER SPHERICAL CORE FOUND AT CENTER OF EARTH The Harvard Gazette 10-15-2
  For the first time in 66 years, we have good evidence for a new region inside Earth.

---

Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 09:30:44 +0100

Subject: Re: Science Admits Asteroid Belt Mass Too Small for Planet Break-Up

From: semaj...@googlemail.com
To: yari...@hotmail.com; dark-star...@googlegroups.com

[wayne james]

yeah all good only they forgot to account that the 2 phase energy (polyphasic earth http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_2/chpt_13/7.html)  originates from the sun and connecting to earth via its 2 poles, that will go up and down as the sun feeds, and makes denser its bubble, there seeing the core losing energy because of the flight path of sol, 26,000 years of progressive loss is gonna show don't you think lol??? don't forget sol has been floating away then progressively heading back to the denser more energised galactic disc, where you will see these fields of energy eventually strengthen and shrink back to a smaller kernel you call it don't you, its ZPE basically the point of centre mass, gravity, where energy is attracted to the most, 

if you see energy as not matter but a field of force over matter constantly feeding it, you will notice there is balance in everything natural, matter is like a battery a storage cell for energy, i.e things have a life span, that life span is dependent of the decay rate, if energized with a field of force stronger than its decay rate it will not decay, 

tesla said himself when the energy is gone matter returns to the ether, 

[mk23666]

How does one calculate the amount of mass swallowed by Jupiter, Saturn, the Sun and the deep of outer space? I wonder do they include the odd shaped moons of the outer planets and Mars in this calculation as well because they certainly seem to be captured objects and not something that was formed in place.

[wayne james]

most of what they do is guess at speculation based on theory like the big bang, simple put we dont have the tech to map our own solar system to an acceptable level. those billions get spent on waging war on our fellow humans lol

--

[tarkin]

Did they consider the mass that escaped the solar system?

 

Tarkin

[mk23666]

My point exactly.