The New Perspective comments on "planets moving closer to the sun?"

You have an imagination. You have an interest in science. Why the **** are you wasting it with purile nonsense?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So you have chosen to ignore the information you have been supplied.

There is no data that indicates there has been an trend towards a warming earth over the last 100 million years

Not to be unkind but you do not seem to understand any of this.

No one with any knowledge thinks that.

No one with any knowledge thinks that.

No one with any knowledge thinks that.

How do you think Mars could magically start gaining water?

The 3 'theories' you proposed are all silly

Then why are you ignoring the evidence??

Time for us is passing at the same rate as it did for the dinosaurs. It is getting warmer over the last 100 years due to MMGW.

But the solar system is not like a whirlpool so the analogy fails.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

False trilemma.
There are at least two other possibilities:

4- the motion is cyclical with no long-term trend

5-the motion is chaotic with no predictability past a certain short-term window.

Also, your evidence that the Earth is moving toward the sun over a timeframe of 65-400 million years is balderdash. You are ignoring plate tectonics and other reasons for climate change and desertification. The Sahara has been much less of a desert within the past 10,000 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Subpluvial so it can't be indicative of a trend over a period 1000 times as great.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

rpenner quoted

False trilemma.
There are at least two other possibilities:

This to me has been the most intelligent response. You are quite correct there are actually many possible options and it is this open minded response that allows you to consider the alternative possibilities.

The gathering of space into thousands or millions of galaxies each similar and each in it's own life-cycle is a pattern we are all familiar with. The process within each of these galaxies resulting in billions of stars with countless planets all cycling in similar manners, must certainly provide an opportunity for you to consider that perhaps there is a more logical process.

You can continue accepting the direction of Earth moving away from the sun, a theory of which I don't reject, but you can also give thought to alternative possibilities. I happen to believe the evolution of the planets is a much more logical process and can be seen like life itself but existing on a larger scale and time frame.

 

We understand that you think this. Do you understand that you have offered no meaningful evidence in support of that belief?

 

alternately:
Four billion years ago, Uranus and Neptune switched places during a gentle ride out to their current orbits.

That's the conclusion of Steve Desch, an astrophysicist at Arizona State University, who thinks that all of the gas giant planets took shape twice as close to the sun as they are at present. His work could cut out much of the mystery of how our "impossible" solar system formed.

The solar system is 4.6 billion years old. The formation of rocky planets, from collisions between ever-larger objects, is a fairly rock-solid theory. But how the outer giants developedremains an open question.

?Models predicted [Jupiter] would take many millions of years for it to form, and billions of years for Uranus and Neptune, but our solar system isn?t that old," Desch said. "Having a denser disk of gas bunched up around the sun could explain the two planets' formations, but only if they switched places."

Desch details his work in a recent issue of the Astrophysical Journal.

from:
http://www.space.com/4755-trading-cosmic-places-neptune-uranus-swapped-spots.html

 

alternately:
Long before Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars formed, it seems that the inner solar system may have harbored a number of super-Earths—planets larger than Earth but smaller than Neptune. If so, those planets are long gone—broken up and fallen into the sun billions of years ago largely due to a great inward-and-then-outward journey that Jupiter made early in the solar system's history.

This possible scenario has been suggested by Konstantin Batygin, a Caltech planetary scientist, and Gregory Laughlin of UC Santa Cruz in a paper that appears the week of March 23 in the online edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). The results of their calculations and simulations suggest the possibility of a new picture of the early solar system that would help to answer a number of outstanding questions about the current makeup of the solar system and of Earth itself. For example, the new work addresses why the terrestrial planets in our solar system have such relatively low masses compared to the planets orbiting other sun-like stars.

"Our work suggests that Jupiter's inward-outward migration could have destroyed a first generation of planets and set the stage for the formation of the mass-depleted terrestrial planets that our solar system has today," says Batygin, an assistant professor of planetary science. "All of this fits beautifully with other recent developments in understanding how the solar system evolved, while filling in some gaps."

from:
http://phys.org/news/2015-03-jupiter-accounts-unusual-solar.html

 

Datura said:

My boyfriend's roommate has a theory that the planets are moving closer to the sun and eventually Earth will become inhabitable and Mars will form life once it moves closer to the sun. Is this possible or no?

This is the thread question and it is without a doubt a possibility.
The only answer is yes. Obviously alternative possibilities and theories are available. For anyone to suggest the answer is no then they would be answering incorrectly.

http://jules.unavco.org/VoyagerJr/EarthScope?

 

Ballocks.

 

That's true. Nearly anything is possible. But is it likely, or even reasonable to assume that might happen? No, it's not.

 

Here is a quote from an article about water on Mars posted by Paddoboy

Water pulled from the atmosphere by salts, or mechanisms with no flowing water involved, remain possible explanations for the features at these sites.

What are RSL?

These features are called recurring slope lineae, or RSL, a mouthful chosen to describe them without implying how they form. Since their discovery in 2011, Martian RSL have become one of the hottest topics in planetary exploration, the strongest evidence for any liquid water on the surface of modern Mars, even if transient. They appear as dark lines extending downslope during a warm season, then fading away during colder parts of the year, then repeating the progression in a following year. Water, in the form of hydrated salts, was confirmed at some RSL sites last year, including in Valles Marineris.

 

Mars is not acquiring the water. The water is already there: a tiny amount in the atmosphere. How do you imagine it can achieve a net gain in water?

 

I think the answer would be that it is exactly the same process that the Earth went through to gain water. Do you have a personal alternative suggestion?

 

Yes. Your assertion that Mars will acquire water in the future is incorrect. (Unless we, or some alien race choose to move it there.)

At least you are being consistent in proposing things for which there is no meaningful evidence and ignoring all the evidence that runs counter to your proposals. You really should invest the time in educating yourself properly on these topics instead of formulating silly ideas based on half truths and ignorance.

 

water from asteroids and comets?
(some for Mars too?)
see:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-did-water-come-to-earth-72037248/?no-ist

 

Yes, the alternative and most logical suggestion is that mars will not aquire water.

 

Here are a few extracts from another discussion group.

1/The Earth has a mass, environment and an electromechanical process that captures hydrogen molecules via the solar wind and bonds oxygen and the hydrogen molecules together to form water molecules. We all know we can introduce electricity to water to produce hydrogen, so just as they can be separated by an electrical process, so to can they be formed through an electromechanical process. As for the moon? Yes it contains water as well. It is well known now, that when the Earth is hit with energy from the sun, our upper atmosphere becomes highly charged with oxygen and water molecules. The solar wind is able to blow some of this material out of our atmosphere; landing it on the moon when the conditions are right. Which of course, is why the moon is so bright...hence, water ice and its reflective characteristics...

2/"The water we encounter today, it seems, must have been delivered long after Earth formed."

This is very far from a proven theory. In particular, there are at least two other plausible sources of water on the earth: (1) the earth was far from fully differentiated by material density during times of negligible atmosphere, and thus water would still be available below the surface, which would rise over time. Evidence for this includes evidence of water as far back as 4.4GYA and the presence of significant quantities of water in the current earth mantle. (2) biochemical action, specifically in the form of bacteria that consume hydrogen sulphide and carbon dioxide and produce water, methane and sulphur

3/The three gases (nitrogen, hydrogen, oxygen) exist at the same proportions, 3 equal volumes. The volume of hydrogen is combined in whole with ½ volume of oxygen to form all the water from the ground, which explains its absence in almost air. ½ of the remaining volume of oxygen formed the ozone layer and the breathable O2 representing 21% of the air current, nitrogen is known by its inertia to respond, which explains its abundance (78% of 'air). details page

A-Primary water origin on earth:
The land was originally a ball of molten material, she played the same role as that played by the sun now that is to say a nucleo-synthesis until the formation of nuclei of oxygen because it has
been designed or formed by accretion in a space where the hydrogen prevailed, when the earth cools, the law reverses, the heavier atoms will take to downdrafts whose atoms (O) and light atoms will escape into updrafts whose atoms (H) s' unite into molecules (H2), the mechanical strength of these updrafts and downdrafts carried around the ground allow the combination of these two gases in incessant explosive chemical reactions (synthesis of water) with a heat generation, all current waters on
earth were formed and hydrogen was totally consumed, as it unites with ½ to 2 volumes Volume oxygen is what explains its almost non-existent in the current air the remaining ½ volume of oxygen will form ozone and O2,which explains its proportion (21%air) the abundance of nitrogen (N2) in our atmosphere (78%)is due to its inertia to react it only reacts to 300 with the hydrogen to form NH3 in a reversible reaction N2 + 3H2-->2NH3 and 2NH3 --> 3H2+ N2, that is to say that it will release easily the hydrogen will combine with oxygen to form water again until exhausted. Is it likely that this temperature was reached or even exceeded account keeping heat from the exo-therm synthesis water. (H2+ O à H2O + heat), the result is always the same.

B- Rainwater (new hypothesis):

1-Photolysis (dissociation or photolysis) of ocean water consists of the decomposition of the water molecule into hydrogen molecules (H2) and carbon (O) under the effect of solar radiation in the
ultraviolet occurrence. www.google.dz/search?q=photoly...

2 -molecules (H2) and atoms (O) are driven by the currents of warm air upward and dry that generate mechanical force,which opposes that of the cold air downdrafts, there is an opposition two mechanical
forces of compression where the volume of air including a mixture of oxygen in the form of atoms (O) and hydrogen in the form of molecules (H2) which both agitated by the fact of compression, friction and the effect of solar rays ionize (hydrogen is charged with positive electricity and oxygen with negative electricity, it is also known very electro-negative); once a favorable compression ratio achieved, the two gases combine in an explosive chemical reaction (synthesis of water is explosive), they form water
(H2O)

3-The light of the flash reaches us first (299,792,458 m / s), second the sound of the explosion was thunder (340m / s) and finally the rain fall rate which is lower to those of the light and sound. So
lightning + thunder + water = are at the same time in one operation

Occurs between 2000 to 5000 frames per second
http://www.planetoscope.com/at...
And each storm
cell can cause more than 100 flashes per minute
http://www.astrosurf.com/luxor...

This means that rainwater is formed by chemical reaction itself around the earth 200000-500000 times per minute, it is rainstorms but there remains a significant amount of water vapor suspended in the form of clouds driven by winds which will then form by coalescence regular rain without lightning or thunder but the initial origin of its formation remains the same.

If rainwater was forming as we learned it would have really enjoyed in summer (since evaporation is
greater) in winter and so-called positive charge cloud is none other than ionized hydrogen and negatively charged cloud of ionized oxygen. Any cloud is formed of a plurality of water molecules that are themselves in bipolar as a mist (therefore speak of positive and negative cloud).

Steam arises from collisions between H2O and after release by photolysis but its life is very short, it suffers the same fate that is to say, the photo-decomposition by ultraviolet, and releases its constituents,
H2 and O continue their ascent to the cold front.

It is the well established theory of the critical zone known as the Goldilocks zone, which has perimeters. These perimeters are a distance close to the sun where water as a liquid is fully evaporated and is no longer stable and the other perimeter is far from the sun where it is too cold to exist as a stable liquid. This is where the importance of understanding the movement of the planets and the process of evolution through this Goldilocks zone crucial when considering the life-cycle of the planets. Earth is rather obviously well positioned in this zone and it is safe to conclude that Mercury and Venus are also beyond the internal perimeter, but towards the other perimeter Mars currently resides on this boundary. The atmosphere has produced the solar caps and evidence of water exists. By considering a simple movement towards Earth and the sun, then the atmosphere changes allowing for the production of water towards the peak median point within the Goldilocks zone and the magical ability for life as smaller units to begin on the surface of Mars.

Did you know that you have not provided any evidence to confirm that the Earth moves away from the sun apart from a simply a theory.

 

Seriously? You think this is relevant? Yes, it is generally accepted that the water on the Earth came largely from asteroids or comets after the moon forming impact. But this is was at a time when the solar system was still filled with planetesimals in abundance, not the comparatively bolide free environment we find today. So in what practical scenario does the inward movement of Mars suddenly become accompanied by a rash and a rush of water bearing objects, all heading for the Red Planet?

Were there any more bleedingly obvious, but wholly irrelevant posts you wished to make?

 

Ophiolite/John,(etc?)
If you posted the above in an attempt to be cordial, friendly, affable, amiable, pleasant, good-natured, gracious or hospitable while inculcating a sense of camaraderie;
I gotta let you know dad
that you are way the hell off the mark.

Good luck with that personality problem.

 

This seems to be one of the advantages of the internet, some people become bold and extremely rude when in person they are probably not, unfortunately it is still an expression of character.

I would love to hear the best piece of evidence in one or two sentences in your own words that would make me consider the Earth moves away from the sun. What evidence can you give me to help convince me the Earth is moving away from the sun?