Posted on 12/19/2017 7:27:49 PM PST by MtnClimber
A study published in the journal Earth and Planetary Science Letters posits that Mars formed in what today is the Asteroid Belt, roughly one and a half times as far from the Sun as its current position, before migrating to its present location.
The assumption has generally been that Mars formed near Earth from the same building blocks, but that conjecture raises a big question: why are the two planets so different in composition? Mars contains different, lighter, silicates than Earth, more akin to those found in meteorites. In an attempt to explain why the elements and isotopes on Mars differ widely from those on Earth, researchers from Japan, the United States and the United Kingdom ran simulations to gain insights into the Red Planets movement within the Solar System.
Even though the studys simulations suggested that the most probable explanation is that Mars formed near Earth, that model doesnt account for the compositional differences between the two planets. Thus, researchers paid particular attention to simulations consistent with the so-called Grand Tack model, which suggests that Jupiter played a major role in the formation and final orbital architecture of the inner planets. The theory holds that a newly-established Jupiter plowed a large concentration of mass towards the Sun, which contributed to the formation of Earth and Venus, while simultaneously pushing material away from Mars, accounting for the planets small mass (roughly 11 percent that of Earth) and the difference between the two planets compositions.
In Grand Tack simulations, the researchers gleaned additional insight into Mars formation. A small percentage of the simulations suggested that Mars formed much farther from the Sun than it is now and that Jupiters gravitational pull pushed Mars into its current position.
(Excerpt) Read more at astrobio.net ...
I was just going to mention that Velikovsky had posited that Mars made several close passes to the earth in historic times before settling into its present orbit. I am also reminded that Velikovsky long ago suggested a different timeline for the middle east which is now being more accepted, except by academics, of course. Settled history, like settled science, dare not be questioned!
Thanks MtnClimber. Venus and Mars are alright tonight.
|
Dont forget all the Preparation H to treat thos asteroids. . .
If you want on or off the Electric Universe Ping List, Freepmail me.
Me either. Shifty kind of planet. Now Jupiter. He’s a good ol’boy. Big, funny, got a bunch of moons he has hanging around. Fun dude.
Just a flesh wound
Oddly enough there’s a reason they say it that way.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=50508.0
And then there is this kicker: every solar system surveyed that has planets, the large massive planets (like Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune) are all located close to the star, in what would be the ‘habitable’ zone or just outside of it. So far it looks like our system is an exception to the rule.
The answer may lie in looking more closely at outlying theories like the the Electric Universe theory which does explain some of what is other wise not explained.
“I have a hard time seeing planet influence overpowering the gravity of the sun.”
Yes, the sun has the largest mass, but all masses in the solar system are affecting each other to some degree as they seek a harmonic equilibrium. Remember also that distance is a factor in the gravitational equation that can become more significant than mass. For example, even though the sun is more massive than the earth, the moon is dominated by the earth’s gravity to a greater degree, simply because it is much closer to the earth.
~~~~~~~~~~
Oxymoron much...?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.