Here's a theory I thought about. If you look at the pyramids in Egypt they form a perfectly straight line from smallest to largest. Could it be concieveable that if someone was to put a huge ruby, diamond, etc to magnify and intensify the light from a light source, hence the sun, wouldn't it create something resembling a laser or the like? And one that intense would do catastrophic damage to what ever it hit. So couldn't it be concieveable, though improbable, it is possible that the asteroid belt is the aftermath of a planet that was destroyed by that laser. I welcome thoughts and debates. E-mail me with all.
Sigh, when are people going to leave the pyramids alone ? I have been to Egypt a few months ago and have seen the pyramids. They are by no means aligned besides there are far more pyramids then the famous three big ones. Over 80 have been discovered this far ranging in age from 4700 to 4000 years old. When you look at the oldest you can actually see how they were trying to make them. Their first tries were even a failure since one can still see the maintain of rubble that was the result. There is no connection what so ever with the stars because the Egyptians were not interested in them not like other peoples, astrology was something invented by the Babylonians. The Egyptians were far more interested in the afterlife and the lifebringing Nile river. When you fly with an aeroplane over the Nile valley the contrast between the dead desert and the living river is really vivid ! Further more a laser is not at all like the destructive weapons that SF movies would like to have you believe. The only thing a laser can do is heat up the spot where it hits and there is no way you can blow up a planet with it. The asteroid beld was in all probability never a planet, here I refer to the posts of DaveW and Boris in the "The 12th Planet - Zacharia Zitchin" thread. I hope this clears the smoke away a bit... [This message has been edited by Plato (edited August 03, 1999).] [This message has been edited by Plato (edited August 03, 1999).]
Actually if a laser was powerful enough it should be able to blow up a planet, if it melted down to the core of the planet and heated it up to the point of vaporizing it wouldnt the pressure from the core be able to blow it up? Course this has to be one damn powerful son of a bitch laser Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I wasn't actually meaning the "3 Pyramids", I was just meaning any pyramids that formed a straight line, I've been told that there are some out there that do form it. And since the source is the sun, building power form it's entry into the Earth's atmosphere, then through the stones condensing and intensifying the rays of light, and one final time on it's way out of the atmosphere, it seems probable. True or not I don't know ... just a thought. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!) Thanks for the replies, I look forward to more!
Bob, Why do you think the laserbeam (if powerfull enough) would stop at the planets core, it would rather meld right trough it al the way to the other side. If it wasn't for gravity pulling the stuff together again you could cut the planet in half but not blow it up. Again this is all very hypothetical because you would have to keep your laser on the same spot of the planet all the time, this is impossible due to planet rotation and you being to far from it. It would take a laser from a stationary orbit around the planet to begin with. Then again where would you find the energy to keep the damn thing operational ? And last but not least, why the heck would you want to blow up a planet for god sake ? ------------------ we are midgets standing on the backs of giants, Plato [This message has been edited by Plato (edited August 04, 1999).]
Blowing up a planet *would* ofcourse be a spectacular way to celibrate the (overhyped) beginning of the next millenium Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Anyway, if I understood correctly, scientists still haven't got a conclusive theory on how the asteroid belts were formed, but if you ask me, I'd stick to the most logical explanation: the asteroidbelts are simply remnants of matter that didn't form into planets. Crisp -- To be or not to be; I cannot remember the question.
The asteriod belt is the remnant of the solar system, the building blocks of what all the planets are made from. This left over material has gradually spread around the sun in a gravitationally stable belt, in much the same way as Saturn has rings, and we have a GEO belt around Earth. I`m affraid it`s nothing as fantastic as ancient peoples building masive lasers.
I just have one question although this might spark a debate on ufology Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ----------------------------------------- The egyptians never possessed the kind of technology we have today. They never had telescopes or binoculars or such tools and devices like that to study the stars. All they had were their sight and imagination. So, if all they had was sight and imagination, how would they know about this 12th planet? How would they even know the difference between all 9 planets or stars for that matter? There are thousands of stars that we see in our nightime sky. As for the asteroid belt, I'm pretty sure it's nothing more than just leftover matter from when the solar system formed. -Dan
About the 12th planet: ----------------------------------- If there was a planet that existed between Jupiter and Mars, why would it be called the "12th planet?" wouldn't it be the 5th planet and pluto be the 10th planet? If there are 12 planets, where are planets 9, 10, and 11? -Dan
I think he means the 10th planet . There are already <u>9</u> planets known of: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
We have the 9 known planets Our sun, and our moon as 10, and 11.. ------------------ "We didn't inherit this world from our parents, we are borrowing it from our children".
I think we have a naming problem here, planets are called planets by convention. Planet comes from the Greek and means wanderer, meaning they were stars who didn't stay in they place like the others. The planets : Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto are the ONLY planets of our solar system because they are called like that by convention and this is historically grown like that. If any other object would get the title "planet" this would make it the tenth planet. Chances for a tenth planet are very slim though, some time ago there was even debate if Pluto deserved the title because it was more related to the icedwarves that are found in the outer solar system then to the innerplanets like our Earth. It was decided though that Pluto would keep his title and that kept the total number of planets in our solar system on nine. A moon is an object that rotates around a planet and the sun is a star, these objects are thus very different from planets. On the other side since celestial bodies have always thought to represent the will of the god(s) a lot of occult meaning was projected upon them. Each one of the planets (the five visible ones with the naked eye that is) the sun and the moon have their own special sign. So you have seven special signs (hence the magical properties of the number seven in the caballa) but also twelve different constellations, these also had their special sign. I guess this is where the mix up occured when talking about twelve 'planets'. ------------------ we are midgets standing on the backs of giants, Plato
I read somewhere in an article in the province a while back (about last year). ------------------------------------ The article wasn't very big, not even 1/6 of a page. It states that a discovery had been made of a planet orbiting around the earth and the sun thus making it a double planet. There was no mention of Luna, so I doubt it had anything to do with the moon. ------------------------------------- There was another article about the same size that had stated that a 10th planet had been discovered. It was too large to be an asteroid, but smaller than pluto. It wasn't given a name such as the nine planets have, but only because of its size. Its name is made of of letters and numbers. -Dan
Dan, some basic Newtonian mechanics is in order here : Gravity is a radial force, this means that it pulls matter towards a central point. This point is the mass middle point (I hope this sounds right for I don't know the correct English word) of the bodies orbiting each other. In the case of the Earth and the Sun, this mass middle point is situated in the interiour of the Sun, very near the Sun's own mass middle point. This is because the Sun is about a million times more heavy then the Earth. If we broaden the picture to the other planets, we have to take their mass into account as well to calculate the central of mass of the system but since more then 99.9 % of all mass of the solar system is concentrated in the Sun, this point is still inside the Sun's interiour. The Sun will wobble a bit, just like the stars that have been observed to have planets of their own in the past five years, but overall it is save to say that all planets orbit around the Sun. It is next to impossible that the Earth would have a large companion other then the Moon, for the simple reason that Earth's orbit is very stable and must have like this for billions of years in order for life to evolve. Any companion with comparable mass would disrupt this stability and could even result in a chaotic orbit because of the non-linearity of a three-body equation. ------------------ we are midgets standing on the backs of giants, Plato
I am looking for an aerospace engineer to interview. If anyone is intrested in helping, e-mail me at davespace15@hotmail.com.
Lasre destroyed a planet? This is in response to Bob's entry at the top of this thread. Unless there is a large part of the earlier planet materiel that has drifted off into space, or has become part and parcel of other nearby planets, there isn't enough materiel left in the asteroid belt to be from an exploding planet. The former planet would have to have been extremely small.
The formation of the Asteroid Belt is a subject covered in the thread http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=29842 "Life First Started On Planet Mercury?" Unfortunately the thread has got quite large but I will try and find the post for you. In the post around this one it is explained. http://www.physforum.com/index.php?act=Post&CODE=06&f=27&t=29842&p=494941
