- Thank you received: 0
Sedna
- Astrodelugeologist
- Offline
- Senior Member
Less
More
20 years 7 months ago #9552
by Astrodelugeologist
Replied by Astrodelugeologist on topic Reply from
Tom,
What could have decreased Sedna's rotation period if it has no moon? Could it have most of its rotational speed as a moon of Planet X, and then remained that way even after Planet X exploded?
I've hypothesized that Quaoar is a former satellite of Neptune. Working from the fission-origin hypothesis, I suggest that Quaoar was Charon's "twin". Do you think this is correct, or is it more likely that Quaoar is a fragment of Planet T?
I've also hypothesized that 2004 DW is a former satellite of Planet X, lost during the Neptune-Planet X encounter. Do you think this is correct, or is it more likely that Quaoar is a fragment or former satellite of Planet T?
--Astro
What could have decreased Sedna's rotation period if it has no moon? Could it have most of its rotational speed as a moon of Planet X, and then remained that way even after Planet X exploded?
I've hypothesized that Quaoar is a former satellite of Neptune. Working from the fission-origin hypothesis, I suggest that Quaoar was Charon's "twin". Do you think this is correct, or is it more likely that Quaoar is a fragment of Planet T?
I've also hypothesized that 2004 DW is a former satellite of Planet X, lost during the Neptune-Planet X encounter. Do you think this is correct, or is it more likely that Quaoar is a fragment or former satellite of Planet T?
--Astro
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- tvanflandern
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
20 years 7 months ago #9734
by tvanflandern
Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Astrodelugeologist</i>
<br />What could have decreased Sedna's rotation period if it has no moon? Could it have most of its rotational speed as a moon of Planet X, and then remained that way even after Planet X exploded?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">All major moons reach synchronous rotation with their parent planet, and keep the same face toward it. If Sedna now has a 40-day spin, then it presumably was in a 40-day orbit around Planet X.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I've hypothesized that Quaoar is a former satellite of Neptune. Working from the fission-origin hypothesis, I suggest that Quaoar was Charon's "twin". Do you think this is correct, or is it more likely that Quaoar is a fragment of Planet T?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">It seems a reasonable conjecture. But discoveries of TNO bodies of this size is still in progress, and their masses and densities are still very poorly known. We will have to await more data before a convincing case can be made for any particular pairing.
The good news is that the pairings will ultimately be testable by hemispheric dichotomies such as Mars has. -|Tom|-
<br />What could have decreased Sedna's rotation period if it has no moon? Could it have most of its rotational speed as a moon of Planet X, and then remained that way even after Planet X exploded?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">All major moons reach synchronous rotation with their parent planet, and keep the same face toward it. If Sedna now has a 40-day spin, then it presumably was in a 40-day orbit around Planet X.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I've hypothesized that Quaoar is a former satellite of Neptune. Working from the fission-origin hypothesis, I suggest that Quaoar was Charon's "twin". Do you think this is correct, or is it more likely that Quaoar is a fragment of Planet T?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">It seems a reasonable conjecture. But discoveries of TNO bodies of this size is still in progress, and their masses and densities are still very poorly known. We will have to await more data before a convincing case can be made for any particular pairing.
The good news is that the pairings will ultimately be testable by hemispheric dichotomies such as Mars has. -|Tom|-
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
20 years 7 months ago #9575
by Meta
Replied by Meta on topic Reply from Robert Grace
Sedna is highly radioactive and boiling hot (red color). It is a former sun, wandering as a negative, proto-planet, captured by our positive sun, just as the other dozens of 19th century bodies are orbiting in highly elliptic paths until our sun causes them to settle down into circular orbits as they all ingress.
Meta200
rgrace@rgrace.org
Meta200
rgrace@rgrace.org
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
20 years 7 months ago #9610
by Meta
Replied by Meta on topic Reply from Robert Grace
Hundreds of capitalists will capitalize upon this highly eccentric orbit of Sedna to put themselves into the spotlight and draw unwarrented attention to themselves and their egos, with their theories of catastrophy, calamities and sudden disasters. However, every known planet was once in a highly eccentric orbit around our young sun. And they all will, as every other body is doing, settle into the circular orbit of mercury and earths moon, over time.
Meta
rgrace@rgrace.org
Meta
rgrace@rgrace.org
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
20 years 7 months ago #10046
by Gregg
Replied by Gregg on topic Reply from Gregg Wilson
In normal matter, the nucleus is roughly one ten thousandth the diameter of the entire atom. Assuming a sphere, the entire repulsive volume of the atom is 500 billion times the volume of the nucleus. Without taking such numbers too seriously (accuracy), it is safe to say that the nucleus is completely exposed to the graviton flux from every direction. From a nucleus point of view, another nucleus is far away and has almost no shadowing effect upon the first nucleus in regard to the graviton flux (not in regard to Elysium). If a nucleus is larger, it simply has more targets for gravitons to hit. Therefore, in a vacuum, a feather and a ball of osmium metal will accelerate downward at the same rate. From the viewpoint of the gravitons, the feather and the osmium ball are almost completely empty. One can envision that it would take a "million miles or so" of normal matter to finally block all the gravitons coming from any particular direction. So, a planet or star would have to be monstrous in order for its matter in the center to be shielded from gravitons. As one adds matter to this sphere, its cross sectional area grows, which exposes the sphere to a larger cross sectional area of graviton flux.
We have the concept of:
Force = Mass * Acceleration
Or:
Momentum Change = Momentum Change
The momentum of the gravitational flux upon a sphere from one direction will be:
Cross Sectional area of the Sphere * Number of gravitons per Cross Sectional Area * Mass of a graviton * Average velocity of a graviton
The momentum of a sphere relative to that gravitational flux will be:
Volume of Sphere * Number of matter ingredients per unit volume (protons/neutrons) * Mass of a matter ingredient * Velocity of sphere in direct opposition to that gravitational flux
In contrast to normal matter, let's consider collapsed matter. What is meant by this is simply a continuous nucleus. The nucleus will not be a solid monolith. We have the axiom that entities are put together and are taken apart. For assembly or disassembly to occur, there has to be "elbow room". So, I will arbitrarily set the void fraction of a nucleus at 50%. A sphere of collapsed matter will be 50% solid and 50% voids. Elysium and gravitational flux will occupy the voids. A body made of this collapsed matter would have roughly 100 million time the "opacity" to a gravitational flux that normal matter has. So, miles of collapsed matter would block the graviton flux in contrast to millions of miles of normal matter.
This difference brings up an interesting issue. Once a collapsed body of matter is large enough to just begin to shield matter at its center from the gravitational flux, what happens if we add more matter? The gravitational flux that must be dealt with will increase by the square of the radius of the sphere. But the mass of the sphere will increase by the cube of the radius. In the equation:
Force = Mass * Acceleration
The left side, the gravitational force, will increase by R2, but the mass on the right side of the equation will increase by R3. Therefore, the acceleration of the collapsed body will be reduced. Such a body will be more resistant to gravitational gradients than a normal matter body will be. A collapsed matter body will better maintain its established orbit than a normal matter body would. So, it is possible that such a body could enter the solar system, cause major disruption of normal matter bodies but have little change in its own orbit.
None of this writing proves or demonstrates or even indicates that collapsed matter exists. But if it does.....
Gregg Wilson
We have the concept of:
Force = Mass * Acceleration
Or:
Momentum Change = Momentum Change
The momentum of the gravitational flux upon a sphere from one direction will be:
Cross Sectional area of the Sphere * Number of gravitons per Cross Sectional Area * Mass of a graviton * Average velocity of a graviton
The momentum of a sphere relative to that gravitational flux will be:
Volume of Sphere * Number of matter ingredients per unit volume (protons/neutrons) * Mass of a matter ingredient * Velocity of sphere in direct opposition to that gravitational flux
In contrast to normal matter, let's consider collapsed matter. What is meant by this is simply a continuous nucleus. The nucleus will not be a solid monolith. We have the axiom that entities are put together and are taken apart. For assembly or disassembly to occur, there has to be "elbow room". So, I will arbitrarily set the void fraction of a nucleus at 50%. A sphere of collapsed matter will be 50% solid and 50% voids. Elysium and gravitational flux will occupy the voids. A body made of this collapsed matter would have roughly 100 million time the "opacity" to a gravitational flux that normal matter has. So, miles of collapsed matter would block the graviton flux in contrast to millions of miles of normal matter.
This difference brings up an interesting issue. Once a collapsed body of matter is large enough to just begin to shield matter at its center from the gravitational flux, what happens if we add more matter? The gravitational flux that must be dealt with will increase by the square of the radius of the sphere. But the mass of the sphere will increase by the cube of the radius. In the equation:
Force = Mass * Acceleration
The left side, the gravitational force, will increase by R2, but the mass on the right side of the equation will increase by R3. Therefore, the acceleration of the collapsed body will be reduced. Such a body will be more resistant to gravitational gradients than a normal matter body will be. A collapsed matter body will better maintain its established orbit than a normal matter body would. So, it is possible that such a body could enter the solar system, cause major disruption of normal matter bodies but have little change in its own orbit.
None of this writing proves or demonstrates or even indicates that collapsed matter exists. But if it does.....
Gregg Wilson
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- The Heretic
- Offline
- New Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
18 years 10 months ago #14841
by The Heretic
Replied by The Heretic on topic Reply from Melvin Bibbee
ref: Meta's posting.
An interesting, if flawed, hypothesis could be that Sedna, if it is "radioactive and boiling hot," it could prove to be D.S. Allan and J.B. Delair's hypothesized "Phaeton Object." Probably not, though. This from their book "Cataclysm! Compelling Evidence of a Cosmic Catastrophe in 9500 B.C."
Thx,
Melvin R. Bibbee II
An interesting, if flawed, hypothesis could be that Sedna, if it is "radioactive and boiling hot," it could prove to be D.S. Allan and J.B. Delair's hypothesized "Phaeton Object." Probably not, though. This from their book "Cataclysm! Compelling Evidence of a Cosmic Catastrophe in 9500 B.C."
Thx,
Melvin R. Bibbee II
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.188 seconds