[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Parent Bodies

Hi Al! - 

--- almitt <almitt@kconline.com> wrote:

> I don't think you can read and comprehend this book 
> and still feel the possibility of Planet X or what
> ever name they want to call it having ever existed.
> Planet X btw was the name given in the search for >
Pluto.

:p) Glad to see that you are using the modern term for
the hypotheitical parent planet.

 
> It really doesn't matter where Jupiter was 

I think that it probably matters a great deal, as it
was supposed to have been Jupiter's gravity that
prevented Planet X from forming.

> (although I would like to know what forces were able
> to put it in its current orbit and park it there) 

I don't think anyone knows, but several hypothesis
were set out in the Scientific American article.

> What matters is what materials we have to examine 
> that demonstrate there was once a larger
> planet there. Such materials would be highly altered
> and chemically complicated like a planet. 

Not if the destruction of Planet X occured early
enough in the formation of our solar system to have
prevented these materials from forming.  The found
compounds would exist if at the time of its
destruction Planet X was still condenscing and
gravitationally differentiating into layers, long
before things like weathering or volcanic processes
would have come into play.  

Also, remember that if Planet X was the source for
meteorites, those coming from its surface would be a
only very small part of the total number of bodies
created by Planet X's destruction.

> Rather in the asteroid belt we find layers of
> materials making up the different types of asteroids

Exactly.  Planet X's materials had gravitationally
differentiated, so we find different types of
asteroids and thus different types of meteorites. 

> and from what we have sampled, meteorites showing
the > chondrules that were present at formation with
iron 
> embedded, primitive star stuff.

Yep.

> It is obvious from their findings supported with 
> observations from Hubble that the H parent
> body was at one time a complete asteroid with the
> less altered material on the crust and the iron core
> in the center. 

Well, you don't expect the parts of Planet X to have
just sat there and done nothing, do you?  Of course
they would have re-accreted, and further, some of them
may have been so large, and the time since Planet X's
destruction so long, that they themselves
gravitationally differentiated (preciptated) to a
large degree.

> I might point out as far as material goes the 
> asteroids that are carbonaceous make up 3/4 of all 
> the known asteroids and no doubt these are more
> primitive yet as we see in the samplings of our
> collections.

Yes, and they may be the remains of burnt out comets,
and not of Planet X.

> One also has to ask what credentials has the person
> or persons who formulate a destroyed or broken up 
> planet have.

The credentials for the cosmolgist who suggested a
different orbital position for Jupiter were given the
Scientific American article.   As for the new
hypothesis for Planet X, the origins of the argument
and even the term remain shrouded in mystery.  

:p)

EP


=====

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com

----------
Archives located at:
http://www.meteoritecentral.com/list_best.html

For help, FAQ's and sub. info. visit:
http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing_list.html
----------