[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Parent Bodies
Hi List and EP,
I'll listen to any information on both sides of a theory or argument. I
have monitored some of the comments about the supposed planet that
formed without Jupiter's present but I recommend reading McSween's book
as it explains in good details about asteroids, their formation timing
and our sampling of the asteroid belt. 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.
It really doesn't matter where Jupiter was (although I would like to
know what forces were able to
put it in its current orbit and park it there) 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. Rather in the asteroid belt we find layers of
materials making up the different types of asteroids and from what we
have sampled, meteorites showing the chondrules that were present at
formation with iron embedded, primitive star stuff. 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. From impact we now see the
various types of the H chondrites in this rubble pile. No where in the
scheme of things does it fit into a once assembled planet or for that
matter do any of the other asteroids from which we have samples from.
Also once asteroids start to crystallize into their stony material after
radioactive decay, the isotope clocks start clicking away showing time
of formation. We don't see any radically differences in the formation of
our asteroids but rather see some alterations due to impact. 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.
One also has to ask what credentials has the person or persons who
formulate a destroyed or broken up planet have. Especially when it goes
against popular believe of the excellent evidence we have on solar
system formation. I am aware that many times in the past scientists as a
group have been totally wrong, such was the case of believing meteorites
couldn't be found from the Moon until 1981. Allan Hills 81005 changed
all of that and also the idea that the strange meteorites we call SNC's
could be from Mars. I do think we have a pretty good idea now that the
probability of a planet having ever formed in the asteroid belt is zero.
Best regards!
--AL
----------
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
----------
Follow-Ups:
References: